- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Why should he keep them on? They publicly expressed that they are against him in the election. I'd fire them too.
Because "supporting their boss' re-election" is not a part of their job description
Because "supporting their boss' re-election" is not a part of their job description
and keeping employees who have made a public statement against their employer is a requirement of the employer.
When the employer is a govt agency, yes it is
What about Gen. McChrystal and Marine Staff Sgt. Gary Stein, both whom were Government employees.
And you make an assumption. Myself only asked a question and made no reference as to what I knew or not knew.
He basically gave you the benefit of the doubt for being intelligent, albeit having failed at trying to set him up with a "got'cha!" moment. But hey, if you want to disavow being intelligent, and claim that you didn't already know that the military is a whole different animal, who are we to argue?And you make an assumption. Myself only asked a question and made no reference as to what I knew or not knew.
He basically gave you the benefit of the doubt for being intelligent, albeit having failed at trying to set him up with a "got'cha!" moment. But hey, if you want to disavow being intelligent, and claim that you didn't already know that the military is a whole different animal, who are we to argue?
When the employer is a govt agency, yes it is
"Liking" Something on Facebook Not Protected by First Amendment
"Liking" Something on Facebook Not Protected by First Amendment - Yahoo! News
From the article:
"Roberts (the sheriff) claims they were either fired for poor performance, or because supporting his opponent "hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office.""
Virginia is an "at will" employment state, meaning your boss can fire you for any reason, at any time, with the exception of religion, race, and gender, or are working under contract that you have not violated. There is no legal recourse for the 6 employees.
I'm pretty sure, but I could be wrong, that "at will" legislation applies only to private employment, not public employment
It's the same. If they don't have a contract, they can get booted at any time.
Don't they have a contract? Aren't they civil service (which implies they do have a contract)?
If they're cops, most likely, but "paper pushers" like clerks, and the like, usually aren't. That's how it is here in Texas, anyway. I really don't see a point in giving temps and clerks a contract, to be honest.
Actually, they usually are also covered by SS, though I don't know what it is in this specific case.
And the point is to prevent politicians from giving those jobs based on politics. It's called patronage, and most people agree that it's unfair and undemocratic in a meritocracy
I don't either. If they had a contract, I don't think they'd be suing on the basis of First Amendment rights.Actually, they usually are also covered by SS, though I don't know what it is in this specific case.
And the point is to prevent politicians from giving those jobs based on politics. It's called patronage, and most people agree that it's unfair and undemocratic in a meritocracy
You miss the point of the 1st amendment entirely. ANY boss may fire those that they feel are not helping "get the job done" as much as some random, unknown replacement worker may. A gov't job, like a private job, need not (and should not) be a "job for life". You work at the pleasure of the boss. You certainly have no right to try to elect a new boss (fire him?) that he does not have to replace you. It is insane to assert that employees that don't like the boss, especially when that can be easily proven, are as likely to cooperate and work as hard as they can to please that boss. Note the massive turnover in the federal SES workforce after each election, especially when the party in power changes. You have the right ro say anything you want to, but no right to expect no consequences from that speach. Had the sheriff arrested, or otherwise harrassed them, then THAT would be a free speach issue, but not merely firing them becuase he did not like them, their work habits or their "likes".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?