First Avenue fires new general manager for supporting Trump

[Fuzzy Bear]

Antidemocratic cult-like behavior on part of those who made that decision.

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://racketmn.com/first-avenue-minneapolis-new-trump-loving-gm-is-out-of-the-picture

Very happy to be going to a show at a First Avenue venue tonight after doing this! ALL LIBERAL ALL THE TIME

Good for them. I've been saying for a long time that we all need to stop playing along with the pretense that the GOP is normal or acceptable. As Republican prepare to pledge their allegiance once again to a rapist, treasonous, megalomaniac with the intent of destroying the American Republic, they should all be treated as the deplorable people they so desperately want to be.

Seek help.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Every business has a right to fire employees that might end up being a liability and a lot of Trump supporters can be liabilities.

Let's try your theory out.  Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters.  After all, they are rightly considered liabilities by businesses fearful of inside retail theft.  Let's do that and see how it holds up in court.  After all, a LOT of BLM supporters can be liabilities.

Don't like that idea?  You probably shouldn't.  It's inherently unfair. 
But no more unfair than your idea.  This employee that was fired didn't destroy statues, harass patrons of outdoor dining, or burn a Wendy's in Atlanta.  So I'll retract my suggestion for a better suggestion:  SEEK HELP!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Let's try your theory out.  Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters.

Okay, sure.

We can divide all of the restaurants in the city into "they won't hire BLM supporters" and "they hire people whether they support BLM or not". How many people are going to continue going to the restaurants that won't hire BLM supporters? I forsee a lot of restaurants struggling and several closing. Republicans love the free market, but the free market does not love Republicans. Womp womp.

So why is it OK then for an establishment to fire a person solely for supporting Donald Trump on his own time, but not BLM?  BLM is, after all, a political organization with views many would consider extreme.

I will also note that, in response to my post, people go ahead and give reasons why it isn't OK to fire people for being open BLM supporters, but won't say why it's OK to fire Trump supporters.  People are telling on themselves here; they want to protect the group they like and punish the group they don't like, and principle be damned.  (My post, by the way, clearly stated that I'm NOT for firing people just for support for a political group, even one I loathe.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters.  After all, they are rightly considered liabilities by businesses fearful of inside retail theft.

Not even trying to mask the racism any more, I notice.

If you're going to be sleazy and libel me, you can at least have the decency to quote the entire post:

Every business has a right to fire employees that might end up being a liability and a lot of Trump supporters can be liabilities.

Let's try your theory out.  Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters.  After all, they are rightly considered liabilities by businesses fearful of inside retail theft.  Let's do that and see how it holds up in court.  After all, a LOT of BLM supporters can be liabilities.

Don't like that idea?  You probably shouldn't.  It's inherently unfair. 
But no more unfair than your idea.  This employee that was fired didn't destroy statues, harass patrons of outdoor dining, or burn a Wendy's in Atlanta.  So I'll retract my suggestion for a better suggestion:  SEEK HELP!

My negative opinion of BLM is based on their role in causing tens of millions in property damage.  That's beside the point, however.  Unlike most people here (or so it seems), I'm willing to respect the rights of people I may loathe. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Elections have consequences.

Elections. Have. Consequences.

This isn't supposed to be one of them.

But if it is, and if I were an employer, and I needed to lay off staff, should I start with the Biden supporters first, simply because I can?  Or should I be fair and consider work performance prior to the need to downsise.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I personally consider this thread to have revealed the latest unfairness of many here.  Not just unfairness in one situation, but the lack of capacity to be fair to persons on the other side of your argument IN REAL LIFE, and not just on this Forum. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is from First Avenue's website:

The following behavior is not welcome at First Avenue venues:

Sexual misconduct or harassment of any kind, including unwelcome verbal or non-verbal sexual attention or unwanted physical contact.

Acting or speaking in a discriminatory manner or using racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, homophobic, xenophobic, or other biased language, including intentional misgendering.

Providing or offering intoxicants, legal or illegal, in a coercive manner, or causing someone to become intoxicated without their consent.

Disruptive or aggressive behavior, including stalking, threatening, or following anyone in an intimidating or unwanted manner.

Abuse of power, including but not limited to abuses related to wealth, race, gender, sexuality, or one’s position as a performer or manager.


While at First Avenue venues, you agree to:

Be proactive in creating a community-oriented atmosphere where the safety of others is prioritized and valued.

Respect the physical and emotional boundaries of others in the venue.
Reject violent or discriminatory behavior.

Be responsible for your own actions. Be aware that your actions do have an effect on others despite what your intentions may be.

He has not violated ANY of these terms because he did NONE of these things while an employee of First Avenue.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I personally consider this thread to have revealed the latest unfairness of many here.  Not just unfairness in one situation, but the lack of capacity to be fair to persons on the other side of your argument IN REAL LIFE, and not just on this Forum. 

As many people your age have told me for years: life isn’t fair, suck it up buttercup and stop being a snowflake.

I've never told you that.  Not once.

Life ISN'T fair, but the degree of fairness people experience is directly proportional to the sense of fairness and justice people in authority over them possess.  This is a case of that.  I've worked in supervisory capacities and whatever people thought of me, people thought I was fair, and the politics of others has never been a concern. 

Individuals have the power to impact the Fairness of Life.  It's a choice.  I choose to be fair.  The management of First Avenue has made another choice.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Not sure what it's going to take for this to penetrate the outer membranes of your skull, but again: he was not fired for his political beliefs, he was fired for making offensive public statements inconsistent with the mission of his employer.
...

This.
He oddly labeled a huge segment of people as possible "racists, homophobes and bigots."
And then added additional nauseous wording to his tweet, to just make it very weird ("they want to control us").
Why would a large company want someone like this in their upper management team?

“What if, and hear me out on this one, it’s actually the progressives who are the racists, the homophobes and the bigots, and they just use those lables [sic] on the rest of us because all they really want to do is control us?”

The statements were not made while he was an employee.  That, to me, is highly relevant.  His position was not a political position, it was not public employment, and it was not a position like, say, law enforcement, where the very appearance of bias is something that can jeopardize one's credibility.

If we want to "go there", how long should it be before this year's Ivy League grads get their first professional job once people find out they were part of the "From the River to the Sea . . ." crowd?  Would it be right to assume the worst of these students and simply not hire them for their issues positions, even in positions that were not political or ideological? 

In a job like being the manager of First Avenue, the manager's politics should have nothing to do with it; only his conduct as an employee should matter. 

It dawns on me here that lots of people who are all in on this would be bent out of shape if a person of color were fired from a job after an old criminal arrest were discovered, even if it were a misdemeanor or a drug felony that was old and the person passed pre-employment drug screening.  Most people here would be upset; they would be going on and on about systemic racism and not wanting to give someone who's changed a chance because of their past.  And I generally agree with that, but you have a Forum full of people that would likely be upset if a person were fired from First Avenue for prior felony, but who are fine with firing this person who has committed no crime at all.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The statements were not made while he was an employee.  That, to me, is highly relevant.  His position was not a political position, it was not public employment, and it was not a position like, say, law enforcement, where the very appearance of bias is something that can jeopardize one's credibility.

If we want to "go there", how long should it be before this year's Ivy League grads get their first professional job once people find out they were part of the "From the River to the Sea . . ." crowd?  Would it be right to assume the worst of these students and simply not hire them for their issues positions, even in positions that were not political or ideological? 

In a job like being the manager of First Avenue, the manager's politics should have nothing to do with it; only his conduct as an employee should matter. 

It dawns on me here that lots of people who are all in on this would be bent out of shape if a person of color were fired from a job after an old criminal arrest were discovered, even if it were a misdemeanor or a drug felony that was old and the person passed pre-employment drug screening.  Most people here would be upset; they would be going on and on about systemic racism and not wanting to give someone who's changed a chance because of their past.  And I generally agree with that, but you have a Forum full of people that would likely be upset if a person were fired from First Avenue for prior felony, but who are fine with firing this person who has committed no crime at all.

 Republicans are the ones who want at-will hiring and firing to be legal and Republicans are the ones who have voted for it. Democrats generally aren't in favour of that. So we can sit here and talk about who thinks this is fair and who thinks that is unfair, but the only reason this situation even happened at all is because Republicans enacted their poltiical power to make sure that there were not laws to prevent things like this from happening. "Being lawfully fired for supporting Trump" doesn't exist in a world where Democrats write the laws.

Is it fair?

I didn't ask if it was legal.  I asked if it is fair, and, if so, why is it fair?

[Fuzzy Bear]

The statements were not made while he was an employee.  That, to me, is highly relevant.

It makes no difference if he made them while he was an employee. Employers have, for many years now, taken what you have said/posted in your past, into consideration for possible disciplinary action (including termination).

... If we want to "go there", how long should it be before this year's Ivy League grads get their first professional job once people find out they were part of the "From the River to the Sea . . ." crowd?  Would it be right to assume the worst of these students and simply not hire them for their issues positions, even in positions that were not political or ideological? 

This First Avenue manager was fired for what he DIRECTLY said/posted.
I'm sure the company did not say, he was fired for simply being affiliated with trump/MAGA.
Big difference, Fuzzy.

As far as any Ivy League grads who simply protested (without arrest), they probably will get a pass from future employers. Anyone who directly said (or video tape) or posted (ie Tweeted) anything that could be interpreted to be anti-Semitic, is another thing entirely.

... In a job like being the manager of First Avenue, the manager's politics should have nothing to do with it; only his conduct as an employee should matter.

Corporate HR would have possible problems as follows:
His tweet brings-in to question, how fair he would be, to any employees under his control who would describe themselves to be "Progressive."

He also directly posted the words "racists" and "homophobes" in his tweet.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has listed "Race" as a protected class, for employment discrimination. His use of "homophobes" involves someone's sexual orientation, which in newer laws also has implications for protection in employment.
Could this manager be trusted to protect all his employees from possible discriminatory acts by other employees/supervisors, from racist or homophobic comments?

His use of both words (and considering their use in the entirety of his bizarre tweet), just make corporate HR squirm, and question everything about this manager.
I don't blame the company for terminating him.

It's still something he said prior to employment.  That's not right.  

How many candidates for this job have made anti-Christian tweets beforehand?  Would we fire, on day one, a manager who, as it would turn out, went online ranting about "fundies" who "believe in fairy tales", etc.?  Religion is a protected class as well, and it can be argued that Evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics are "disfavored" groups.  

There's no fairness in this.  If a black person in this situation's pro-BLM posts that included, say, support for "respirations" and apologia for pulling down statues, could we count on THAT candidate to be fair to white employees?  Could a Palestinian Arab with posts taking a position on Palestine comparable to, say, Rashida Tlaib, be able to be fair to Jewish employees, particularly an observant Jew?  We can go on and on with examples. 

If a person has a negative track record on the job and he's applying for another job, that's one thing.  That's not the case here.