• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Damage control (for a business or organization) VS freedom of speech

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
In the recent case of Juan and NPR, when you cut to the quick, what happened was damage control (founded or unfounded - not the issue in this thread) but none the less it was damage control VS his freedom of speech.

Using that type of scenario in mind (but not just focusing on the details of his situation):

At what point, if any, does a company's damage control trump one's employment rights when it comes to their voicing of personal opinions?

How many unsettling and disruptive issues can occur - where the management at the employees company, though not sanctioning or encouraging the employees views, is questioned before it becomes legitimate grounds for dismissal?

How much should a company tolerate when an employee ripples the waters and brings scrutiny, disruption and trouble to that company *unintentionally* (that means: the employee said something NOT about or related to the company - but it was painted TO the company, negatively, anyway)
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
In the recent case of Juan and NPR, when you cut to the quick, what happened was damage control (founded or unfounded - not the issue in this thread) but none the less it was damage control VS his freedom of speech.

Using that type of scenario in mind (but not just focusing on the details of his situation):

At what point, if any, does a company's damage control trump one's employment rights when it comes to their voicing of personal opinions?

How many unsettling and disruptive issues can occur - where the management at the employees company, though not sanctioning or encouraging the employees views, is questioned before it becomes legitimate grounds for dismissal?

How much should a company tolerate when an employee ripples the waters and brings scrutiny, disruption and trouble to that company *unintentionally* (that means: the employee said something NOT about or related to the company - but it was painted TO the company, negatively, anyway)
If one is covered by a contract, those issues are clearly spelled out. If one is not covered by a contract, it's fire at will. Without a contract (unless one is a government employee and the issue is campaining or other political activity) anything's legitimate grounds for dismissal.
 
Top Bottom