First Avenue fires new general manager for supporting Trump

[DPKdebator]

As long as he didn’t make his political beliefs a blatant and obnoxious part of his management style, it’s pretty inappropriate to fire someone because they don’t hold the same beliefs as you and expressed those views in private life.

[MasterJedi]

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.

[Ancestral Republican]

As long as he didn’t make his political beliefs a blatant and obnoxious part of his management style

That type of position is public facing so the way you interact with the world on social media is a part of your job description.

[DrScholl]

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!

Can you make a post without mentioning BLM? Trump is literally under indictment for numerous things and can get his supporters to do anything. Who would hire them?

[DPKdebator]

As long as he didn’t make his political beliefs a blatant and obnoxious part of his management style

That type of position is public facing so the way you interact with the world on social media is a part of your job description.

He did it long before actually working at the company, this should have no bearing on his employment. It would be different if he continued to engage in blatant political messaging while acting as the public face of the company.

[Ancestral Republican]

As long as he didn’t make his political beliefs a blatant and obnoxious part of his management style

That type of position is public facing so the way you interact with the world on social media is a part of your job description.

He did it long before actually working at the company, this should have no bearing on his employment. It would be different if he continued to engage in blatant political messaging while acting as the public face of the company.

1) not "long before"
2) evidence of this substantial character flaw was available before he started the job, not necessitating finding out during the course of his employment

[DPKdebator]

As long as he didn’t make his political beliefs a blatant and obnoxious part of his management style

That type of position is public facing so the way you interact with the world on social media is a part of your job description.

He did it long before actually working at the company, this should have no bearing on his employment. It would be different if he continued to engage in blatant political messaging while acting as the public face of the company.

1) not "long before"
2) evidence of this substantial character flaw was available before he started the job, not necessitating finding out during the course of his employment

His feed was inactive for two years before he was hired; I would hardly consider that recent. If it wasn’t for social media the people who did this digging on him wouldn’t know anything about his beliefs. I’ve worked with people whose beliefs I don’t always agree with, but I don’t raise a stink about it because at the end of the day it usually has little impact on me. Judging people entirely by their political beliefs is pretty toxic and shouldn’t have any bearing on someone’s employment status if they keep it out of the workplace.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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. 

     It's something I've observed in other arenas too, not just in the realm of politics. I don't know if it's social media or what, but people do seem to be generally losing the ability to comprehend others' thoughts. This is probably a manifestation of the Reverse Flynn Effect that is being observed now.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As long as he didn’t make his political beliefs a blatant and obnoxious part of his management style

That type of position is public facing so the way you interact with the world on social media is a part of your job description.

He did it long before actually working at the company, this should have no bearing on his employment. It would be different if he continued to engage in blatant political messaging while acting as the public face of the company.

1) not "long before"
2) evidence of this substantial character flaw was available before he started the job, not necessitating finding out during the course of his employment

His feed was inactive for two years before he was hired; I would hardly consider that recent. If it wasn’t for social media the people who did this digging on him wouldn’t know anything about his beliefs. I’ve worked with people whose beliefs I don’t always agree with, but I don’t raise a stink about it because at the end of the day it usually has little impact on me. Judging people entirely by their political beliefs is pretty toxic and shouldn’t have any bearing on someone’s employment status if they keep it out of the workplace.

Agreed.

[Ancestral Republican]

As long as he didn’t make his political beliefs a blatant and obnoxious part of his management style

That type of position is public facing so the way you interact with the world on social media is a part of your job description.

He did it long before actually working at the company, this should have no bearing on his employment. It would be different if he continued to engage in blatant political messaging while acting as the public face of the company.

1) not "long before"
2) evidence of this substantial character flaw was available before he started the job, not necessitating finding out during the course of his employment

His feed was inactive for two years before he was hired; I would hardly consider that recent. If it wasn’t for social media the people who did this digging on him wouldn’t know anything about his beliefs. I’ve worked with people whose beliefs I don’t always agree with, but I don’t raise a stink about it because at the end of the day it usually has little impact on me. Judging people entirely by their political beliefs is pretty toxic and shouldn’t have any bearing on someone’s employment status if they keep it out of the workplace.

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. Maybe he should have deleted them if he no longer agreed with them or better still never made them in the first place. Don't like at-will employment? Move to France and find somebody who cares.

Republicans in this thread are really melting down at the consequences of their own votes (for politicians who support at-will employment)

[OSR stands with Israel]

As long as he didn’t make his political beliefs a blatant and obnoxious part of his management style

That type of position is public facing so the way you interact with the world on social media is a part of your job description.

He did it long before actually working at the company, this should have no bearing on his employment. It would be different if he continued to engage in blatant political messaging while acting as the public face of the company.

1) not "long before"
2) evidence of this substantial character flaw was available before he started the job, not necessitating finding out during the course of his employment

His feed was inactive for two years before he was hired; I would hardly consider that recent. If it wasn’t for social media the people who did this digging on him wouldn’t know anything about his beliefs. I’ve worked with people whose beliefs I don’t always agree with, but I don’t raise a stink about it because at the end of the day it usually has little impact on me. Judging people entirely by their political beliefs is pretty toxic and shouldn’t have any bearing on someone’s employment status if they keep it out of the workplace.

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. Maybe he should have deleted them if he no longer agreed with them or better still never made them in the first place. Don't like at-will employment? Move to France and find somebody who cares.

Republicans in this thread are really melting down at the consequences of their own votes (for politicians who support at-will employment)

Well republican politicians could add private political speech to the CRA if they wanted to protect their own voters

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As long as he didn’t make his political beliefs a blatant and obnoxious part of his management style

That type of position is public facing so the way you interact with the world on social media is a part of your job description.

He did it long before actually working at the company, this should have no bearing on his employment. It would be different if he continued to engage in blatant political messaging while acting as the public face of the company.

1) not "long before"
2) evidence of this substantial character flaw was available before he started the job, not necessitating finding out during the course of his employment

His feed was inactive for two years before he was hired; I would hardly consider that recent. If it wasn’t for social media the people who did this digging on him wouldn’t know anything about his beliefs. I’ve worked with people whose beliefs I don’t always agree with, but I don’t raise a stink about it because at the end of the day it usually has little impact on me. Judging people entirely by their political beliefs is pretty toxic and shouldn’t have any bearing on someone’s employment status if they keep it out of the workplace.

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. Maybe he should have deleted them if he no longer agreed with them or better still never made them in the first place. Don't like at-will employment? Move to France and find somebody who cares.

Republicans in this thread are really melting down at the consequences of their own votes (for politicians who support at-will employment)

Well republican politicians could add private political speech to the CRA if they wanted to protect their own voters

Yet they aren't. This is like when Republicans complain about Democratic gerrymanders and do nothing in regards to anti-gerrymandering federal legislation.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

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.

[Ancestral Republican]

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.

That argument might be valid if it had been 10-15 years prior to his hire. But this was only a couple of years and he still had those offensive posts up for everyone to see under his public name. One of them involved implying victims of police brutality deserved it - not a great look for someone working in a market like Minneapolis.
He did not delete any of these things so the implication is that he is fine with the consequences of people knowing his views on these issues.
If you'd like this not to happen in the future, vote for candidates who support labor and the end of the uniquely American practice of "at-will employment."

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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?”

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

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.

[T'Chenka]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

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?

[ProudModerate2]

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.

[Ferguson97]

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. 

Fair doesn't mean equal. Judging someone by the content of their character is one of the fairest things that you can do. Political beliefs can be a reflection of one's moral character. Trump supporters fundamentally lack moral character. If they had moral character, they wouldn't support Trump.

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?

I'm certainly not going to complain if these lunatics get fired or struggle to find a job.

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.

"It dawns on me that people would feel differently if the situation were entirely different."

Wow, what a surprise.

Having a previous felony conviction doesn't automatically make someone a bad person.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The tax cuts that is included in 2017 that drops Corporate taxes from 35/21 benefits too oil Corporation that's why TX is still an R state because of Big oil and Romney won TX by 12

Most Corporate are R but not as R as the oil industry the Dallas Cowboys have Jerry Jones and he is connected to Trump and big oil

[Obama24]

People who make their politics public in general and in such an aggressive way aren't good management material. If he weren't so aggressively political maybe he'd have kept the job.

[Obama24]

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.

That argument might be valid if it had been 10-15 years prior to his hire. But this was only a couple of years and he still had those offensive posts up for everyone to see under his public name. One of them involved implying victims of police brutality deserved it - not a great look for someone working in a market like Minneapolis.
He did not delete any of these things so the implication is that he is fine with the consequences of people knowing his views on these issues.
If you'd like this not to happen in the future, vote for candidates who support labor and the end of the uniquely American practice of "at-will employment."

And, additionally, don't scream your politics from the metaphorical rooftops because no one cares.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

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.