Should private sector employers have any right to fire people for their politics?

[All Along The Watchtower]

[DaleCooper]

I have somewhat mixed feelings, but for now I'm leaning towards no, with the exception of only if those people bring their politics to the workplace in a way that demonstrably has a negative impact on other employees or customers.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Absolutely not. Employers need to have the power they already have over their workers' off-the-clock lives dramatically curtailed, not retained and even strengthened so that they can be part of a woke panopticon. If a worker's political views are really that objectionable then they'll start showing up as actual fireable offenses eventually anyway; I would expect that, for example, a retail clerk with Christian Identity views would be pretty noticeably hostile towards non-white customers. And if he or she somehow wasn't, then what business would his or her views be of anyone's?

[PSOL]

Only if they threaten the lives of other employees. My issue is that employers take such feats in politicizing labor rights, which considering McDonald’s and other retail stores view $15 proponents as security threats, I’m hesitant here.

[John Dule]

If a business wants to put that in their contract, I can't really stop them. But I would view them with extreme contempt and would not want to do any business with them.

[All Along The Watchtower]

FWIW, in the US many private sector workers already can be fired for expressing political views at work or on social media. And there’s not much, if anything, they can do about it. The wonders of at-will employment.

As an employee expressing yourself at work, you have fewer protections than you'd think — and if your boss doesn't like what they hear, you could get fired for it.

Your company may have rules prohibiting political paraphernalia or using social media to express your political beliefs, so it's always a good idea to get acquainted with your employee handbook.

And unless you signed some sort of contract that says otherwise, it's likely you're an at-will employee. This means that your job can be terminated without having to establish just cause.

Labor laws exist in this country to protect people against adverse employment actions due to discrimination, but very few laws exist that truly protect private-sector employees from getting fired for expressing their political affiliation. A handful of states, such as New York and California, have laws that offer protections for political affiliation, but even some of those are fairly limited.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-discuss-politics-at-the-office-2016-11

[RI]

FWIW, in the US many private sector workers already can be fired for expressing political views at work or on social media. And there’s not much, if anything, they can do about it. The wonders of at-will employment.

As an employee expressing yourself at work, you have fewer protections than you'd think — and if your boss doesn't like what they hear, you could get fired for it.

Your company may have rules prohibiting political paraphernalia or using social media to express your political beliefs, so it's always a good idea to get acquainted with your employee handbook.

And unless you signed some sort of contract that says otherwise, it's likely you're an at-will employee. This means that your job can be terminated without having to establish just cause.

Labor laws exist in this country to protect people against adverse employment actions due to discrimination, but very few laws exist that truly protect private-sector employees from getting fired for expressing their political affiliation. A handful of states, such as New York and California, have laws that offer protections for political affiliation, but even some of those are fairly limited.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-discuss-politics-at-the-office-2016-11

Yes, the answer is doing away with at-will employment.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Yes, the answer is doing away with at-will employment.

One can hope.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

Absolutely not and this is why everyone should be in a union

[Ferguson97]

Depends on the politics in question. Nazis and KKK members should be fired, but not Democrats or normal Republicans.

[TheReckoning]

Depends on the politics in question. Nazis and KKK members should be fired, but not Democrats or normal Republicans.

This simply becomes a question of “where does one draw the line.”

To some people, normal Republicans are barely any better than Nazis or KKK members. In fact, some believe the latter and Republicans are pretty much the same.

[Schiff for Senate]

I have somewhat mixed feelings, but for now I'm leaning towards no, with the exception of only if those people bring their politics to the workplace in a way that demonstrably has a negative impact on other employees or customers.

That, and maybe some other cases if the employer has a good reason.

[dead0man]

If it's a problem at work, of course employers should be able to fire employees that are causing the trouble.  Because so many of us have made politics a religion, outwardly expressing any obvious political positions to the public can harm the bottom line.  If the business is fine with that and wants to publicly brag about their political affiliation(s), that's fine too.  But if Wal Mart or Bob's House of Floor Mats doesn't want their cashier wearing a MAGA hat, they should be able to tell their employers that they can't wear it.  If the delivery driver uses his routes to spread ISIS or antifa ideology against the wishes of the people who pay him, he should be able to be legally fired.


At the other end of the spectrum, the boss shouldn't be able to fire you if he over hears you tell a friend who you voted for last election.



I'm pretty sure the law agrees with me here.

[Non Swing Voter]

In the real world this rarely happens.  But it happens in hiring.  A lot of professional jobs frown upon resumes that look Trumpy.  And I'm sure rural employers do the same kind of thing.

[Indy Texas]

Not unless:

1. They are constantly bringing it up at work and arguing with other employees and it's interfering with work getting done.

2. They are convicted of a crime in the course of expressing their political views (ex. the Capitol Riot).

3. They are a person whose public image is directly related to that of the company (ex. the CEO, a spokesperson, or other high-level person).

[TheReckoning]

Only if such opinion is right-wing, obviously.

[dead0man]

Not unless:

1. They are constantly bringing it up at work and arguing with other employees and it's interfering with work getting done.

2. They are convicted of a crime in the course of expressing their political views (ex. the Capitol Riot).

3. They are a person whose public image is directly related to that of the company (ex. the CEO, a spokesperson, or other high-level person).

what about a cashier wearing a pro-Klan* pin on their lapel?  If you talk to customers as a representative of the company, the company should (and does, as far as I know) be able to limit what political positions you can display while "on the clock".  I suppose this could fit under your #3, but your examples seem to indicate you only want to punish a...ahem... certain type of person.


Also with #2, lots of people who got arrested at BLM protests/riots could be fired.  Are you ok with that?  Not that I disagree, if a person gains notoriety for doing an illegal thing during a political protest, they should be legally able to be fired for the negativity they bring the company.


*or antifa, MAGA, Socialists of America, the DNC, pro-life,pro-choice or any other political positions

[Damocles]

This is like asking, "should employers be able to retaliate against employees for distributing union literature?" (That's illegal btw, but they'll concoct some ridiculous and obscure reason for the firing as a matter of corporate CYA)

[muon2]

Interestingly public sector employers routinely fire some people for their politics, but there are constraints on who. In IL it went to a pair of federal lawsuits. The case Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois went all the way to SCOTUS where a 5-4 majority ruled in 1990 that the state could not base hiring decisions on political affiliation for low-level positions. That created a class of so-called Rutan-exempt positions within the bureaucracy that state officials could legally control with patronage. Last year Gov Pritzker sought to end the decrees related to political patronage hiring that started in the early 70's with the Shakman case.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Case by case basis: A neo-nazi certainly shouldn't be a police officer and I would be leary on letting a maoist handle my accounts but I don't think it's right for companies to fire people for mereley voting or thinking the wrong way.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Interestingly public sector employers routinely fire some people for their politics, but there are constraints on who. In IL it went to a pair of federal lawsuits. The case Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois went all the way to SCOTUS where a 5-4 majority ruled in 1990 that the state could not base hiring decisions on political affiliation for low-level positions. That created a class of so-called Rutan-exempt positions within the bureaucracy that state officials could legally control with patronage. Last year Gov Pritzker sought to end the decrees related to political patronage hiring that started in the early 70's with the Shakman case.

Justice Scalia argued that the restrictions that the U.S. Constitution places upon government in its capacity as a lawmaker are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as an employer. "Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can."

Justice Scalia wrote that the provisions of the U.S. Bill of Rights were designed to restrain transient majorities from impairing long-recognized personal liberties, but that they did not create by implication novel individual rights overturning accepted political norms. He reasoned that when a practice not expressly prohibited by the text of the Bill of Rights bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use that dates back to the beginning of the American Republic, the Supreme Court has no proper basis for striking it down.

Justice Scalia reasoned that political patronage has a long heritage in the history of the United States. He argued that the "Spoils System" largely enhanced by President Andrew Jackson was a testament to this heritage. Thus, Justice Scalia would have held that, while the First Amendment applies in full force to private individuals, it is severely restricted in its application for government employees. When weighed against the political heritage of the spoils system that was prevalent at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, the Court had no authority to whittle away at such a method of determining civil service.

How could anyone possibly respect Scalia as a legal scholar after this monstrosity of an opinion ?. Corruption isn't uncoustional, it's just part of our national heritage. What a farce that wouldn't be out of place in a tin pot dictatorship.

[muon2]

Interestingly public sector employers routinely fire some people for their politics, but there are constraints on who. In IL it went to a pair of federal lawsuits. The case Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois went all the way to SCOTUS where a 5-4 majority ruled in 1990 that the state could not base hiring decisions on political affiliation for low-level positions. That created a class of so-called Rutan-exempt positions within the bureaucracy that state officials could legally control with patronage. Last year Gov Pritzker sought to end the decrees related to political patronage hiring that started in the early 70's with the Shakman case.

Justice Scalia argued that the restrictions that the U.S. Constitution places upon government in its capacity as a lawmaker are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as an employer. "Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can."

Justice Scalia wrote that the provisions of the U.S. Bill of Rights were designed to restrain transient majorities from impairing long-recognized personal liberties, but that they did not create by implication novel individual rights overturning accepted political norms. He reasoned that when a practice not expressly prohibited by the text of the Bill of Rights bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use that dates back to the beginning of the American Republic, the Supreme Court has no proper basis for striking it down.

Justice Scalia reasoned that political patronage has a long heritage in the history of the United States. He argued that the "Spoils System" largely enhanced by President Andrew Jackson was a testament to this heritage. Thus, Justice Scalia would have held that, while the First Amendment applies in full force to private individuals, it is severely restricted in its application for government employees. When weighed against the political heritage of the spoils system that was prevalent at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, the Court had no authority to whittle away at such a method of determining civil service.

How could anyone possibly respect Scalia as a legal scholar after this monstrosity of an opinion ?. Corruption isn't uncoustional, it's just part of our national heritage. What a farce that wouldn't be out of place in a tin pot dictatorship.

Are you suggesting that Pritzker is in the same camp as Scalia? They were definitely arguing from the same side of the question. The difference being that Scalia was making a broad statement about employment by the government, Pritzker was making a statement that oversight protecting the workers from patronage is no longer needed in IL.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Interestingly public sector employers routinely fire some people for their politics, but there are constraints on who. In IL it went to a pair of federal lawsuits. The case Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois went all the way to SCOTUS where a 5-4 majority ruled in 1990 that the state could not base hiring decisions on political affiliation for low-level positions. That created a class of so-called Rutan-exempt positions within the bureaucracy that state officials could legally control with patronage. Last year Gov Pritzker sought to end the decrees related to political patronage hiring that started in the early 70's with the Shakman case.

Justice Scalia argued that the restrictions that the U.S. Constitution places upon government in its capacity as a lawmaker are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as an employer. "Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can."

Justice Scalia wrote that the provisions of the U.S. Bill of Rights were designed to restrain transient majorities from impairing long-recognized personal liberties, but that they did not create by implication novel individual rights overturning accepted political norms. He reasoned that when a practice not expressly prohibited by the text of the Bill of Rights bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use that dates back to the beginning of the American Republic, the Supreme Court has no proper basis for striking it down.

Justice Scalia reasoned that political patronage has a long heritage in the history of the United States. He argued that the "Spoils System" largely enhanced by President Andrew Jackson was a testament to this heritage. Thus, Justice Scalia would have held that, while the First Amendment applies in full force to private individuals, it is severely restricted in its application for government employees. When weighed against the political heritage of the spoils system that was prevalent at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, the Court had no authority to whittle away at such a method of determining civil service.

How could anyone possibly respect Scalia as a legal scholar after this monstrosity of an opinion ?. Corruption isn't uncoustional, it's just part of our national heritage. What a farce that wouldn't be out of place in a tin pot dictatorship.

Are you suggesting that Pritzker is in the same camp as Scalia? They were definitely arguing from the same side of the question. The difference being that Scalia was making a broad statement about employment by the government, Pritzker was making a statement that oversight protecting the workers from patronage is no longer needed in IL.

Well I don't know enough about illinois to have an informed opinion about what Pritzker is doing though i'm inclined to be a bit suspious given your states colorful history with regards to political patronage.

My comments was more regarding the insanity of the logic expounded by Scalia to approve of running a patronage system for goverment jobs. Just seems utterly alien to any developed country to think such a system is acceptable.

[CEO Mindset]

they shouldn't be able to fire people in general if we're going to keep insisting on tying first world standards of living to having a "good job". well i'd still be opposed to firing even if we had ubi/dealt with cost disease and made employment 100% economically/socially optional but it wouldn't be as relevant of an issue

we've got the "pretend to pay people" bit of the old eastern bloc, so let's bring in the "pretend to do our jobs" bit with it too.

[Indy Texas]

Not unless:

1. They are constantly bringing it up at work and arguing with other employees and it's interfering with work getting done.

2. They are convicted of a crime in the course of expressing their political views (ex. the Capitol Riot).

3. They are a person whose public image is directly related to that of the company (ex. the CEO, a spokesperson, or other high-level person).

what about a cashier wearing a pro-Klan* pin on their lapel?  If you talk to customers as a representative of the company, the company should (and does, as far as I know) be able to limit what political positions you can display while "on the clock".  I suppose this could fit under your #3, but your examples seem to indicate you only want to punish a...ahem... certain type of person.


Also with #2, lots of people who got arrested at BLM protests/riots could be fired.  Are you ok with that?  Not that I disagree, if a person gains notoriety for doing an illegal thing during a political protest, they should be legally able to be fired for the negativity they bring the company.


*or antifa, MAGA, Socialists of America, the DNC, pro-life,pro-choice or any other political positions

1. The store could forbid wearing any kind of pins or buttons.

2. I said convicted, not arrested.