Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

iliveonramen said:

For silent prayer probably not. For yelling "we should get rid of every last damn Jew" certainly. That creates a hostile work environment. The fact is, as lot of rights are not given to employees. There are a lot of limitations on what is appropriate at the workplace. The Constitution protects you from the government as a citizen. The guy in the article worked for the government but it was an employer/employee relationship.

Click to expand...

Your claim about what the Constitution protects is not very accurate. I already mentioned here that firing government employees--in contrast to employees who work for private firms at will-- may involve several constitutional issues. These may include the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion.

I doubt your conclusion that the black employee in my hypothetical could "certainly" be fired for that statement. He might, or not, but it's far from certain that a single statement in private conversation by a government would do enough to create a hostile work environment to justify firing him.

tacomancer said:

The same should be applied to anyone who disparages any group, gays, christians, muslims, black people, white people, moonies, people who eat cheese, people with one bigger than another, blonds, etc.

Click to expand...

So fire everyone. Because we all have our own "isms" that we employee every day.

tres borrachos said:

I agree with this concept. However, where does it stop?

I oppose puppy mills and back yard breeding with every fiber of my being. If someone who is my peer or even my superior wrote a book about the "Joys of breeding your bitch 4 times a year to produce pet store puppies", and it was published and he gave it to me and others, I'm not sure that would result in his termination. Nor do I think it should result in his termination. But it would make me hostile nonetheless. You can probably find something that creates a hostile environment for someone in every business and employer in this world if the definition is "bothers anyone who may have views or sympathies".

Click to expand...

Its why I am glad I did not go into HR and went into a technical field that did not require so much interpretation, that line is there, but I guess its like the SCOTUS's comments on porn, you cant define it, but you know it when you see it. I honestly wish there was a better answer.

CRUE CAB said:

Welp, this is part of it. Fire anyone that speaks poorly of gays.

Click to expand...

Chick fila
the CEO from CA that was fired for donating his personal money to something that he believed in.

the list will continue to grow.
you will see more and more stories like this because heaven forbid people have a difference of opinion to the thought police of this country.

tres borrachos said:

But I've never had to confront it so I have no idea. I'm just saying IMO it isn't as cut and dry as I think some people assume it is.

Click to expand...

Right right right.

So now will you address my original point...which had nothing to do with whether or not firing would be legitimate...and was questioning why you kept using a hypothetical that implied peers by using the term "co-worker" continually, instead of using one more relevant to the case that is supervisor and subordinate.

I can't imagine in whatever job you work at that there is not some different levels, types, or strictness of rules regarding allowable actions in the case of a supervisor and a subordinate as opposed to two peers.

CRUE CAB said:

So fire everyone. Because we all have our own "isms" that we employee every day.

Click to expand...

or people can discuss the job at hand

tacomancer said:

I had one lady who was a 55 year old disabled philipino woman. The amount of paperwork and time it took (it took over a year before the HR VP (yes it went up that far) would agree to it and they even had legal look at it)

Even though she clearly did not understand and we could not successfully train her on the technical aspects of her job.

Click to expand...

Two things jump out at me: disabled, and 55 year old woman. The first makes it VERY hard to terminate. Disability is a broad thing too. I have a color blind employee. Yes, he is on our records as having a disability.

I've only had to terminate 2 women in all my years as a manager, and both times took much longer than the men. I don't envy the people in HR as I think they are walking on eggshells constantly. The rules could fill up 8 floors of the Empire State Building if you printed them all out.

tacomancer said:

The same should be applied to anyone who disparages any group, gays, christians, muslims, black people, white people, moonies, people who eat cheese, people with one bigger than another, blonds, etc.

Click to expand...

so you are now saying he shouldn't be fired since the city is disparaging against his Christian religious views?
seems to me you have an issue to resolve in your argument.

tres borrachos said:

Finally. I was hoping someone other than myself saw this.

Does anyone not think that is at the core of this?

Click to expand...

I absolutely think it's at the heart of it.

If this was a private entity things become a lot more murky. The screams of "FIRST AMENDMENT! FIRST AMENDMENT" become much more eye roll worthy, as the first amendment doesn't protect you from non-government entities inflicting legal consequences against you for your words/religious beliefs. Because this is a government entity, and specifically because it's a religion fueled book, it does become a bit more wonky in terms of what is or isn't allowed.

tres borrachos said:

Two things jump out at me: disabled, and 55 year old woman. The first makes it VERY hard to terminate. Disability is a broad thing too. I have a color blind employee. Yes, he is on our records as having a disability.

I've only had to terminate 2 women in all my years as a manager, and both times took much longer than the men. I don't envy the people in HR as I think they are walking on eggshells constantly. The rules could fill up 8 floors of the Empire State Building if you printed them all out.

Click to expand...

Ive told multiple HR managers that they might as well be lawyers and get paid more for doing the same thing

ludin said:

so you are now saying he shouldn't be fired since the city is disparaging against his Christian religious views?
seems to me you have an issue to resolve in your argument.

Click to expand...

lol, the city is not doing that, they are firing someone.

seriously, how old are you? your lack of understanding of .. anything is seriously amusing.

Zyphlin said:

Right right right.

So now will you address my original point...which had nothing to do with whether or not firing would be legitimate...and was questioning why you kept using a hypothetical that implied peers by using the term "co-worker" continually, instead of using one more relevant to the case that is supervisor and subordinate.

I can't imagine in whatever job you work at that there is not some different levels, types, or strictness of rules regarding allowable actions in the case of a supervisor and a subordinate as opposed to two peers.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is the termination was just because he was the boss? I don't know that. I've already said that. That would require me saying that I know for a fact I couldn't fire one of my team members for doing what the Atlanta FD chief did and giving the book to co-workers on my team, but that I could and would get fired for bringing in a book that I wrote and giving it to those same team members.

I'm not sure what it is you don't get. I don't know the answer to the question.

ludin said:

do a bit of research he condemned all sexual immorality. the pages in question where in a chapter what was dealing with what the bible said on sexual morality.
he also mentioned that sex outside of marriage is wrong. maybe you should get all the facts instead of jumping to conclusions.

Click to expand...

You think that makes it better? So if I'm having sex with my girlfriend my boss gives me a book condemning me? I used homosexuality as one example. Thanks for clearing it up that his book condemned a much wider group.

When you go to a workplace is it to:
A) Work
or
B) To be condemned for your private life

prove he did any of it. he handed the book out to personal friends that he worked with. he is allowed to do that.
the thing is they have no proof.

they committed religious discrimination and I hope they pay the price.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting that he only gave it to personal friends? The article said he gave it to workers.

They actually didn't. The guy may get his job back but they won't pay any price.

You seem to be making the same mistake people do when they argue something is protected by the 1st Amendment. The right to practice doesn't mean you have the right to jam it down everyone's throat in every situation.

tacomancer said:

Ive told multiple HR managers that they might as well be lawyers and get paid more for doing the same thing

Click to expand...

You got that right! HR people are not paid nearly enough for what they have to do. It's a nasty job and takes a special kind of person and that ain't me. I love that I have them to go to.

tres borrachos said:

So what you're saying is the termination was just because he was the boss? I don't know that. I've already said that. That would require me saying that I know for a fact I couldn't fire one of my team members for doing what the Atlanta FD chief did and giving the book to co-workers on my team, but that I could and would get fired for bringing in a book that I wrote and giving it to those same team members.

I'm not sure what it is you don't get. I don't know the answer to the question.

Click to expand...

In my last discrimination seminar (I thought it was a requirement all managers do this yearly, maybe thats just my company) it was drilled into my head that managers are under a lot more scrutiny due to the fact that they 1. represent the company to the rank and file and 2. can use the weight of the company in personal decisions.

ludin said:

1.)I already supported my argument and you have proven nothing wrong.

2.) Fact the book he made was outside of work for a bible study at his church (protected)
3.) the chapter in question deals with what the bible says on sexual immorality (protected)
4.) he handed the book out to people that he had personal relationships with.
5.) there is no evidence that he discriminated against anyone.
6.) so yea those are the facts your opinion is irrelevant.
7.) see I have already supported my argument plenty of times
8.)you have yet to prove anything wrong.
9.) you saying something is wrong doesn't make it so.

Click to expand...

1.) no you didnt has facts, multiple posts/posters, the article and law already proved.
2.) not fired for that, fact
3.) not fired for that
4.) co workers part of which he was fired for
5.) wasnt fired for discrimination
6.) you havent posted any relevant facts and ive given you no opinions or mine
7.) has it was just proven again you havent, all you did is state things that dont matter and he wasnt fired for . . all strawman
8.) correct facts, law and the articles do though
9.) agreed good thing thats not why your argument failed and cant be supported
fact win again

thank you for AGAIN proving you cant support you argument

tres borrachos said:

I agree with this concept. However, where does it stop?

Click to expand...

My take?

On the city, state, or federal rules regarding groups granted civil protection against work place discrimination.

Things like Race and Religion have long since been on the list.

For many places now, Sexual Orientation is on that list.

If somehow "Puppy Breeding Choice" becomes a protected status then you may have a leg to stand on for acting against someone who's doing actions, in the work place, that leads to a hostile/offensive work environment for people based on their Puppy Breeding Choice.

EVERYTHING is a slippery slope. Every single law we have on the books, every single policy any company puts forward all of it; it's all a slippery slope. We decide "where it stops" continually as a society at all levels. Simply pointing to the slippery slope and saying "where does it stop" is never a good reason to NOT do something. If you can't put forward an argument as to why it SHOULD stop at a particular point, and all you have left is "where does it stop/slippery slope", that should be a good indication that the answer to "where it should stop" is "not here".

tacomancer said:

In my last discrimination seminar (I thought it was a requirement all managers do this yearly, maybe thats just my company) it was drilled into my head that managers are under a lot more scrutiny due to the fact that they 1. represent the company to the rank and file and 2. can use the weight of the company in personal decisions.

Click to expand...

No, we have to do the same annual crap. My team members have to do annual harassment training and sensitivity and all that too.

To your point, that is true about managers but that isn't defined separately in the federal rules on employment.

CRUE CAB said:

Welp, this is part of it. Fire anyone that speaks poorly of gays.

Click to expand...

another failed strawman
and no thats not the gay agenda

again please tell us, using facts what is the gay agenda? thank you

tres borrachos said:

No, we have to do the same annual crap. My team members have to do annual harassment training and sensitivity and all that too.

To your point, that is true about managers but that isn't defined separately in the federal rules on employment.

Click to expand...

In my training, state laws tend to be cited, but I don't remember what as I am usually trying to stay awake.

Zyphlin said:

My take?

On the city, state, or federal rules regarding groups granted civil protection against work place discrimination.

Things like Race and Religion have long since been on the list.

For many places now, Sexual Orientation is on that list.

If somehow "Puppy Breeding Choice" becomes a protected status then you may have a leg to stand on for acting against someone who's doing actions, in the work place, that leads to a hostile/offensive work environment for people based on their Puppy Breeding Choice.

EVERYTHING is a slippery slope. Every single law we have on the books, every single policy any company puts forward all of it; it's all a slippery slope. We decide "where it stops" continually as a society at all levels. Simply pointing to the slippery slope and saying "where does it stop" is never a good reason to NOT do something. If you can't put forward an argument as to why it SHOULD stop at a particular point, and all you have left is "where does it stop/slippery slope", that should be a good indication that the answer to "where it should stop" is "not here".

Click to expand...

Yes I already know all of that. It has nothing to do with what I posted to Tacomancer. The discussion was about perception of harassment. I don't recall myself posting about discrimination. And the Atlanta story was not about discrimination,

matchlight said:

Your claim about what the Constitution protects is not very accurate. I already mentioned here that firing government employees--in contrast to employees who work for private firms at will-- may involve several constitutional issues. These may include the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion.

Click to expand...

Please, tell me how government employees are treated differently than private employees when it comes to workplace vs private rights. From my experiences in the military you actually walk a much tighter rope working for government than you do public entities.

I doubt your conclusion that the black employee in my hypothetical could "certainly" be fired for that statement. He might, or not, but it's far from certain that a single statement in private conversation by a government would do enough to create a hostile work environment to justify firing him.

Click to expand...

If he told someone that "we should get rid of every Jew" and the person told HR he would be fired. That's creating a hostile work environment and there's no employee handbook private or public that allows that. It's pretty hard to argue against what you believe but the fact is that kind of speech isn't tolerated.

tres borrachos said:

Yes I already know all of that. It has nothing to do with what I posted to Tacomancer. The discussion was about perception of harassment. I don't recall myself posting about discrimination. And the Atlanta story was not about discrimination,

Click to expand...

I honestly think its always going to be context based as we are dealing with very personal and strongly held beliefs and in many cases beliefs that multiple people hold are noncompatible (gay person versus person who beliefs homosexuality is evil for example) so while I am no HR expert, my understanding is its going to have to be based on context and perception and of course the HR dept's mandate to protect the company (which is what they really do, they arent there for employees really).

My brain likes math and rules, its not something im good at and I may have gotten my interpretation wrong too. But thats my take.

I just try to keep my mouth shut in practice unless I am dealing with a coworker who I know I am safe with.

tres borrachos said:

So what you're saying is the termination was just because he was the boss?

Click to expand...

I...I don't really know how to say this more clearly.

From the very first post I made responding to you, and in this entire back and forth conversation we've had, I did not say the termination was justified or not. You keep responding to my posts in this line of conversation and writing a whole lot about whether or not he could be fired....which was not what my initial post was arguing or asking about at all.

Once again, I'm going to try to be as clear as possible...

In arguing your point about this issue you kept using a hypothetical that continually implied action between peers, coworkers, in the work place to compare to this situation. HOWEVER, this situation was not a case of peers, but of a supervisor to his subordinates.

My question was why did you keep trying to compare this to a hypothetical situation of peers, rather than one more accurate to the situation where it's a supervisor and an employee.

The reason I was asking is that in my entire professional life, I've never seen a business or government entity that tweets interactions between two peers and interactions between a boss and his subordinates as exactly the same. In all instances I've experienced, the boss/subordinate relationship has either additional scrutiny, additional rules, or additional level of expectations regarding how they function with each other.

I am not suggesting that because it's a boss and a subordinate that inherently means his termination is just. I was suggesting that because it's a boss and a subordinate, the situation is DIFFERENT than one between two general coworkers which suggests peers. And thus I was asking why you kept seemingly coming at it from the peer perspective in your hypotheticals.

If somehow in your experience or current job the relationships/interactions between peers is exactly the same in terms of scrutiny and rules/guidelines then that would be an acceptable answer as to why you seemingly felt it wasn't necessary to use a more accurate hypothetical situation. I can't really fathom such a work experience that functions that way, but if you say yours does that would be a legit answer.

If your experience IS that there are differences between those two types of interactions...then my question is why did you keep talking about coworkers instead of a boss and his subordinates in your hypotheticals?

Deuce said:

Handing out religious materials to subordinates in a public position, on the job.

Click to expand...

Sbow where he did it on the job?