NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently stumbled across a really vile blog, full of unbelievable racism, and it got me thinking. If I was working with this man, and I knew he was publishing this shit (no I won't link to it), I'm fairly sure I'd try to get him fired. Or at least file a human rights complaint against him.

What do you denizens of NSG think? Imagine a person expressing truly misogynist, racist, or homophobic views all over the internet, including on forums...should that come to light, would it justify (in your mind) some sort of reaction on the part of his or her employers?

Nope, freedom of expression.

no

unless he publishes under his own name and is known to be employed by a certain employer (who might then want to fire him to avoid being associated with his opinions)

It depends upon what his job is.

Nope, freedom of expression.

And what if, in your position, you are dealing with the very populations you are hatefully villifying online?

I am thinking particularly in terms of adminstrative functions, in some sort of governmental capacity. If you are making choices that could impact the rights of certain people, I think that publishing that sort of content publicly would be enough to create a reasonable apprehension of bias, which in a judicial context would be enough to get an administrative review.

Still in that context, outside of a decision-making capacity, should the government employ people who express those kinds of views? Would that be damaging to public confidence?

Some jobs have the employee signing a clause saying they have to be an example.
Like a few years back when a teacher in Texas got fired for going to a strip club.
Unless you have such clauses in an employment contract firing him for his view points is a sure way to end up transferring ownership of the company to him when he gets lawyer.

No, now if he was posting this up on the noticeboard on work than yes but as this is outside the workplace than no he shouldn't be.

If the views impacted upon the person's work, and the work affected the public in some way, then I think reaction is valid. You shouldn't have xenophobes working at immigration centres or homophobes working at (public) adoption agencies, etc.

It's about conflict of interests, really. If an organisations stated aim is to provide a public service that does not discriminate, then having an employee who discriminates is obviously not working towards that aim.

Having, say, a racist working in your local corner shop, however, seems small fry; depending on their actions obviously.

Unless he is (a) demonstrating this kind of behaviour in the work place and is (b) unable to perform his job, as much as I would find his views disgusting, I do not see it is grounds to fire someone.

And what if, in your position, you are dealing with the very populations you are hatefully villifying online?

I am thinking particularly in terms of adminstrative functions, in some sort of governmental capacity. If you are making choices that could impact the rights of certain people, I think that publishing that sort of content publicly would be enough to create a reasonable apprehension of bias, which in a judicial context would be enough to get an administrative review.

Still in that context, outside of a decision-making capacity, should the government employ people who express those kinds of views? Would that be damaging to public confidence?

Who would be stupid enough to blog something like that, under their own name, if they worked for the government?

They should if you're in a certain line of work. Out of interest was he inciting anything or just insulting?

And what if, in your position, you are dealing with the very populations you are hatefully villifying online?

I am thinking particularly in terms of adminstrative functions, in some sort of governmental capacity. If you are making choices that could impact the rights of certain people, I think that publishing that sort of content publicly would be enough to create a reasonable apprehension of bias, which in a judicial context would be enough to get an administrative review.

Still in that context, outside of a decision-making capacity, should the government employ people who express those kinds of views? Would that be damaging to public confidence?

Well the thing is Bottle that if they do the job that is required by them and don't display signs of discrimination if it is against workplace practice then why would it bother?

One could be against say gay marriage and be a court clerk that issues license but because it is a requirement of the job and they did it anyway why would it matter?

Some jobs have the employee signing a clause saying they have to be an example.
Like a few years back when a teacher in Texas got fired for going to a strip club.
Unless you have such clauses in an employment contract firing him for his view points is a sure way to end up transferring ownership of the company to him when he gets lawyer.

There are a number of professions that have a code of conduct or professional code of ethics. Even without signing a contract requiring 'good character' you can be bound by that code. Many teachers, depending on their Association have such a code, and lawyers certainly do.

Stop laughing, it's true.

So it would be easier in these situations to exclude people who publicly expressed really vile opinions. Of course that would just make it super obvious that some evil Jew wrote the codes in question.

There are a number of professions that have a code of conduct or professional code of ethics. Even without signing a contract requiring 'good character' you can be bound by that code. Many teachers, depending on their Association have such a code, and lawyers certainly do.

Stop laughing, it's true.

So it would be easier in these situations to exclude people who publicly expressed really vile opinions. Of course that would just make it super obvious that some evil Jew wrote the codes in question.

Yeah. But i doubt he has a profession of those sorts or any sort of education.

To be honest given your description the guy likely doesn't have a job and lives in his mom's basement.

It should get him laughed at, humiliated, and ostracized. But not fired.

Unless he is (a) demonstrating this kind of behaviour in the work place and is (b) unable to perform his job, as much as I would find his views disgusting, I do not see it is grounds to fire someone.

Could you not think of situations however, where expressing such views would be prima facie indication that the person in question is unable to perform his or her duties? Again, I'm referring to employees bound by some sort of code of conduct, or ethical duty to avoid bias.

Who would be stupid enough to blog something like that, under their own name, if they worked for the government? It's not all that difficult to figure out real identities on the internet, Jason.

:p
K but no really. Even if someone was posting under an alias, but had pictures of themselves, or descriptions that were enough to identify them...people really do these things.

They should if you're in a certain line of work. Out of interest was he inciting anything or just insulting?

Define incite. I honestly couldn't read more than a few pages before I threw up in my mouth. It was the most hateful thing I've ever come across.

Well the thing is Bottle that if they do the job that is required by them and don't display signs of discrimination if it is against workplace practice then why would it bother?

One could be against say gay marriage and be a court clerk that issues license but because it is a requirement of the job and they did it anyway why would it matter?

Did you just call me Bottle? :confused:

As long as everything he does on that blog is legal, and he does nothing that could ever link him back to his employer, then it is no business of the employer's what he does on his own time. So, no, he should not get fired just for being a racist scumbag.

However, if his personal online scumbaggery does in anyway reflect badly on the company, then, yes, the employer is within his/her rights to protect the image of the company by disengaging from such a person. So if the employee crosses the line of mixing business and personal activities, then he could be fired for that.

I would argue that this would also apply even if he does not mention anything about his job on his blog, but his profile in the company is high enough and his connection well known enough that it can be presumed it is public knowledge -- such as if he is an executive or director of the company. Then there would be a serious issue.

Also, if the employer is angry enough about it, they might consider whether such activities are vile enough to violate any morals clause of the employment agreement, if such a thing exists for that employee.

The employer, learning that this employee has such attitudes, would be well advised, in my opinion, to review the employee's performance and make sure those attitudes are not leaking into how they behave on the job, towards co-workers and/or customers. If they are, then the bastard is out.

Finally, if the employment is at-will, then the employer can fire the employee without having to state a reason, and if they decide they just don't want such a vicious racist on their staff, they can quietly decide to eliminate his position.

But then "free speech" protects a person from being targeted for holding unpopular views. It does not protect a person from any conceivable consequence for stating their views. The employer cannot go "racist hunting" among his staff, but at the same time, as a citizen in his own right, the employer is not obligated to work with people he does not like.

It should get him laughed at, humiliated, and ostracized. But not fired.
Well consider this from the point of view of this person's coworkers. You stumble upon his site. See the horrible, racist things he is saying about people 'like you'. Really venomous generalisations, stating clearly that he believes this to be true of all of 'your kind'.

Would that be harrassment?

What if he, without listing names, talked about specific colleagues, and you recognised a portrayal of yourself.

Would that be harrassment?

Can harrassment only happen within the context of the workplace? Could your coworker, for example, put up posters of you with the word 'Douchebag' under your face, all over town, as long as she did it while off hours?

As long as everything he does on that blog is legal, and he does nothing that could ever link him back to his employer, then it is no business of the employer's what he does on his own time. So, no, he should not get fired just for being a racist scumbag.

However, if his personal online scumbaggery does in anyway reflect badly on the company, then, yes, the employer is within his/her rights to protect the image of the company by disengaging from such a person. So if the employee crosses the line of mixing business and personal activities, then he could be fired for that.

I would argue that this would also apply even if he does not mention anything about his job on his blog, but his profile in the company is high enough and his connection well known enough that it can be presumed it is public knowledge -- such as if he is an executive or director of the company. Then there would be a serious issue.

Also, if the employer is angry enough about it, they might consider whether such activities are vile enough to violate any morals clause of the employment agreement, if such a thing exists for that employee.

The employer, learning that this employee has such attitudes, would be well advised, in my opinion, to review the employee's performance and make sure those attitudes are not leaking into how they behave on the job, towards co-workers and/or customers. If they are, then the bastard is out.

Finally, if the employment is at-will, then the employer can fire the employee without having to state a reason, and if they decide they just don't want such a vicious racist on their staff, they can quietly decide to eliminate his position.

But then "free speech" protects a person from being targeted for holding unpopular views. It does not protect a person from any conceivable consequence for stating their views. The employer cannot go "racist hunting" among his staff, but at the same time, as a citizen in his own right, the employer is not obligated to work with people he does not like.

Thank you....this is exactly the kind of nuanced, thoughtful response I'm trying to elicit. Of course, I expect no less from you :D

Did you just call me Bottle? :confused:

Apologies.

I meant Neesika.

Well consider this from the point of view of this person's coworkers. You stumble upon his site. See the horrible, racist things he is saying about people 'like you'. Really venomous generalisations, stating clearly that he believes this to be true of all of 'your kind'.

Would that be harrassment?

What if he, without listing names, talked about specific colleagues, and you recognised a portrayal of yourself.

Would that be harrassment?

Can harrassment only happen within the context of the workplace? Could your coworker, for example, put up posters of you with the word 'Douchebag' under your face, all over town, as long as she did it while off hours?

Curse you, Neesika. I'm supposed to look like I'm working at my dayjob right now, but this is too interesting!

No, harrassment is not strictly confined to the workplace. However, employers have no authority over their employees when they are not at work, so unless the off-duty harrassment becomes such that one employee gets an RO against another, I don't see what an employer can do about it. If Employee A is harrassing Employee B outside of the workplace, Employee B is going to have to appeal to public authorities (the police, the courts) for help.

But if the scumbag employee is saying things about his company, his co-workers, or his employers that actually are recognizable references, then that would fall under harming the image and function of the company and potentially be a firing offense.

If the scumbag employee is doing this on his off hours, it begs the question of how he could not be doing it to some degree on the job as well, dealing directly with the people he hates so much. That would be an issue for HR or the employer to investigate if the offended employees bring it up. It would fall under the heading of creating a hostile work environment.

Depends on the job. Are they in charge of who gets social security or some other benefit provided by the state? Then yes, I would say something. Is he a sewer maintenance man? No. I won't bother.

Thank you....this is exactly the kind of nuanced, thoughtful response I'm trying to elicit. Of course, I expect no less from you :D
You put so much pressure on me. :p

Depends on the job. Are they in charge of who gets social security or some other benefit provided by the state? Then yes, I would say something. Is he a sewer maintenance man? No. I won't bother.
Sewer workers are entitled to being protected from a hostile work environment, too. If as Nees suggested, he is directly or indirectly attacking/harrassing his fellow sewer workers, then it would be an issue.

I gotta earn my paycheck. I'll check in on this later. :D

Define incite. I honestly couldn't read more than a few pages before I threw up in my mouth. It was the most hateful thing I've ever come across.

Not nice then. In that case yeah, if you can prove that someone runs a blog that incites hate they should be sacked.

Originally Posted by Neesika
There are a number of professions that have a code of conduct or professional code of ethics. Even without signing a contract requiring 'good character' you can be bound by that code. Many teachers, depending on their Association have such a code, and lawyers certainly do.

Stop laughing, it's true.

So it would be easier in these situations to exclude people who publicly expressed really vile opinions...

While I would absolutely hate and despise and certainly not trust anyone who experessed these views, you can't fire them. Unless they are in a position of authority (management/HR in the private sector) or are supposed to be socially aware (public sector: health, social care, justice, education, politics &c.), then hell yeah. And if that hatred would directly affect the way they performed their job (eg. a racist police officer) then it's even more important to fire their asses. If it's something like that Formula1 guy having the "Nazi-themed sex party" when he was off duty ...then you can't, unfortunately.

Curse you, Neesika. I'm supposed to look like I'm working at my dayjob right now, but this is too interesting!

This is what every day is like for me.

Well consider this from the point of view of this person's coworkers. You stumble upon his site. See the horrible, racist things he is saying about people 'like you'. Really venomous generalisations, stating clearly that he believes this to be true of all of 'your kind'.

Would that be harrassment?

What if he, without listing names, talked about specific colleagues, and you recognised a portrayal of yourself.

Would that be harrassment?
Though I'm no legal eagle, unless the racist blogger was planning on the person they were attacking seeing the site, i.e., actually harassing them with words and pictures, then I don't see how it's harassment. I realise that the blogs are public, but it could be being used as a method of venting, without actually naming individuals.

However, once word got out in the workplace that this certain person was a vile racist, spewing all kinds of nonsense on the net, ostracisation would probably occur, and the employer might well step in to deal with a problem in the workplace.

I mean, I'd take action if one of my employees was actively inciting potentially dangerous hatred against another one of my employees, just as if one of my employees was creating rape fantasies on their blog about (one of) their fellow employees, and was using language that seemed to imply future action.

A lot depends on content.

Well consider this from the point of view of this person's coworkers. You stumble upon his site. See the horrible, racist things he is saying about people 'like you'. Really venomous generalisations, stating clearly that he believes this to be true of all of 'your kind'.

Would that be harrassment?

What if he, without listing names, talked about specific colleagues, and you recognised a portrayal of yourself.

Would that be harrassment?

Can harrassment only happen within the context of the workplace? Could your coworker, for example, put up posters of you with the word 'Douchebag' under your face, all over town, as long as she did it while off hours?

One of my great assets - also one of my great flaws - is my ability and tendency to copycat my opponent. Check if what he does is legal and acceptable. If it isn't, try to get him fired. If it is, emulate him against himself.

It should get him laughed at, humiliated, and ostracized. But not fired.

Which would get you fired.

No.

Even if the "self expression" on the blog is working directly against what the paid work is supposed to achieve. If the person is free to do either, then they are free to do both. It's a crazy kind of life which works hard for and against one and the same thing, but hell some people are just junkies for work.

Here is a corrollary of the OP's question which I find interesting: is it OK to reveal the blogger's day job to the blogosphere? That would likely end up with the same result. Followers of the blog, given convincing evidence, would find the employer and clue them up.

If, as the OP posits, being linked to the blog would lose the person their job ... is it also true that linking to the job would discredit the blog?

Curse you, Neesika. I'm supposed to look like I'm working at my dayjob right now, but this is too interesting!

No, harrassment is not strictly confined to the workplace. However, employers have no authority over their employees when they are not at work, so unless the off-duty harrassment becomes such that one employee gets an RO against another, I don't see what an employer can do about it. If Employee A is harrassing Employee B outside of the workplace, Employee B is going to have to appeal to public authorities (the police, the courts) for help.
I agree that if the harrassment is happening outside of the workplace then the appropriate venue is the court. However, as you state below, it's hard to see how it could be strictly confined to off-hours. If, for example, a coworker liked to discuss in great detail how he wanted to rape me, I certainly would not feel comfortable working with him, and in that situation, I do believe that my employers have some sort of duty to ensure that I both feel, and AM safe.

But if the scumbag employee is saying things about his company, his co-workers, or his employers that actually are recognizable references, then that would fall under harming the image and function of the company and potentially be a firing offense. Which is why, kiddies, you shouldn't be posting pictures of you doing stupid shit at work on your Facebook.



If the scumbag employee is doing this on his off hours, it begs the question of how he could not be doing it to some degree on the job as well, dealing directly with the people he hates so much. That would be an issue for HR or the employer to investigate if the offended employees bring it up. It would fall under the heading of creating a hostile work environment.
Ah, yes, this would likely take care of the problem I highlighted above. So, it is quite conceivable that the behaviour, even if engaged in entirely off the job, could create enough of a hostile work environment if it came to light that it could impact someone's employment.

Depends on the job. Are they in charge of who gets social security or some other benefit provided by the state? Then yes, I would say something. Is he a sewer maintenance man? No. I won't bother.Well we certainly don't want to precipitate an unemployment crisis amongst bigots...talk about creating the perfect storm!

I agree that the function of the job should be one of the deciding factors. Anyone working in an administrative capacity making decisions that impact the rights or benefits of others should be as free from the reasonable apprehension of bias as possible. Though to what extent? Is it alright for an outspoken feminist or anti-conservative to be in such a position? The Code of Conduct and Ethics (http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/library/egovdocs/2005/alpe/158311.pdf) for the Public Service of Alberta discusses various conflicts of interests that could result in dismissal. However, section 17 specifies that there are no limits on political activity as long as one is not engaged in soliciting contributions. So a public servant, not excercising statuory discretion (ie a municipal/provinical infrastructure employee) could be a regular contributor to Stormfront and not lose his or her job.

Alright, that gives a bit more guidance. The key is discretionay powers. If you don't have 'em, be as racist as you wanna be, just keep it on the low down to avoid embarrasing your employer.


You put so much pressure on me. :p

I used to hate it when my profs did this to me. "Oh Sinuhue, this is an alright paper and normally I'd give it an A, but I know you can do better.":mad:

If the scumbag employee is doing this on his off hours, it begs the question of how he could not be doing it to some degree on the job as well, dealing directly with the people he hates so much. That would be an issue for HR or the employer to investigate if the offended employees bring it up. It would fall under the heading of creating a hostile work environment.

I think that, were his blog to become public knowledge at his place of work, and if he had co-workers that belonged to whatever groups he so viciously attacked on his blog, the blog merely becoming known at his company would be enough to constitute a hostile work enivornment.

It would be nearly impossible to expect him to interface successfully with any of the aforementioned co-workers. I can imagine that those co-workers would want absolutely nothing to do with him, and I don't think HR would find it an unreasonable request to prevent associations between him and the co-workers he held such views against, due to the obvious discomfort such associations would entail. If his views were so toxic that he became effectively ostracized from the rest of the company, then it's hard to believe he'd still be able to successfully do his job. Unless he held some sort of position where he never had to interact with co-workers, at some point the public knowledge would hinder his ability to do his job.

Further, if the blog became public knowledge in a wider sense, then there would probably be pressure from clients to dissociate from him and his views. If clients refused to do business with a company that employed such a man, then his continued employment would be a detriment to the company, and they would be completely justified in terminating employment.

It's a potential testament to something our mothers all said to us when we were young, about what to say if you have nothing nice to say. The man has every right to voice his beliefs and views, no matter how heinous they are. But I, as the hypothetical employer, have the same right to voice my disgust with his beliefs and views by ending my association with him. He has no fundamental right to that particular job.

You have to tread carefully here. This guy could have grounds for counter suit if he was wrongfully dismissed due to his private practices. Unless there is someway to tell that the person in question is the anonymous poster on a blog. Would any reasonable informed person be able to figure that out? I think the person is a scumbag too for the record.

Not nice then. In that case yeah, if you can prove that someone runs a blog that incites hate they should be sacked. Ok, but on what grounds?

Are you talking about the legal definition of inciting hatred, which is a criminal matter, or possibly a human rights (administrative) matter? Or would this be covered by some other principles you can identify?

Which would get you fired.

Not at work or by co-workers, silly. ;)

Anyone working in an administrative capacity making decisions that impact the rights or benefits of others should be as free from the reasonable apprehension of bias as possible. Though to what extent? Is it alright for an outspoken feminist or anti-conservative to be in such a position?
If they are actively discriminating, then there's a problem.

Though I'm no legal eagle, unless the racist blogger was planning on the person they were attacking seeing the site, i.e., actually harassing them with words and pictures, then I don't see how it's harassment. I realise that the blogs are public, but it could be being used as a method of venting, without actually naming individuals.
Now that's interesting...

Leaving aside the issue of libel, say that the blog was specific enough, without naming you directly. And say that a number of your coworkers were aware of these posts, but you were not. Is that not harrasment, simply because you are unaware it's going on? Would it only become harrasment once you were made aware of it?

If a tree falls in a forest...

If they're not doing it at work, none of work's business.

However, once word got out in the workplace that this certain person was a vile racist, spewing all kinds of nonsense on the net, ostracisation would probably occur, and the employer might well step in to deal with a problem in the workplace.

... by firing the bullies who were ostracizing someone for something which occ ...

oops.

If they're not doing it at work, none of work's business.

Maybe so. But the same can be said for the reaction. ;)

Here is a corrollary of the OP's question which I find interesting: is it OK to reveal the blogger's day job to the blogosphere? That would likely end up with the same result. Followers of the blog, given convincing evidence, would find the employer and clue them up.

If, as the OP posits, being linked to the blog would lose the person their job ... is it also true that linking to the job would discredit the blog?

Discredit the blog? In what way?

That's interesting though...is it harrasment to lift the internet veil?

You have to tread carefully here. This guy could have grounds for counter suit if he was wrongfully dismissed due to his private practices. Unless there is someway to tell that the person in question is the anonymous poster on a blog. Would any reasonable informed person be able to figure that out? I think the person is a scumbag too for the record.

I think the hypothetical is built upon the presumption that his employers DO find out it is him posting to the blog.

If his employers could demonstrate that the revelation of the blog led to a hostile work place, then they could terminate him for that. There would be no basis for wrongful termination if they could show that the public knowledge of his blog led to him being unable to fulfill the duties of his job.

Discredit the blog? In what way?

That's interesting though...is it harrasment to lift the internet veil?

It could be, depending on what they do with the information. Seems to be a favorite tactic to deal with controversial folks on Youtube, just publish all their personal info and make vague threats.

My personal thought is if you don't want your online activities to bleed into your daily life then you ought exercise a modicum of restraint as to what details about yourself you post online.

Some jobs have the employee signing a clause saying they have to be an example.
Like a few years back when a teacher in Texas got fired for going to a strip club.
Unless you have such clauses in an employment contract firing him for his view points is a sure way to end up transferring ownership of the company to him when he gets lawyer.

Which was bullshit, but that's Texas for you.

Mur has already crystallized my thoughts eloquently, but here's my own words.

Employers have a right to protect their organization's image, and people tend to seriously overreact to what is effectively someone's personal opinions. Seems to me that if the job isn't affected, and the behavior in question is not mutually exclusive to the performance of one's job or the image of one's employer, I don't see the harm.

Thing is, perception is 90% (or more) of reality, and that's what makes this topic so volatile.

Now that's interesting...

Leaving aside the issue of libel, say that the blog was specific enough, without naming you directly. And say that a number of your coworkers were aware of these posts, but you were not. Is that not harrasment, simply because you are unaware it's going on? Would it only become harrasment once you were made aware of it?
I would think so. Harassment seems to imply that the person being harassed is aware of the situation; in the same way that an individual can't be annoying me without me actually being annoyed.

That's not to say the other person is doing no wrong, they're just not harassing; I think that's the wrong term.

(Again, though, I'm using a layperson's definition of 'harassment'. UK/US/Canadian law may very well view it differently.)

If they are actively discriminating, then there's a problem.

That's the problem though...it's very difficult to prove active discrimination. This is why many public servants are enjoined from engaging in activities that would create a reasonable apprehension of bias. In legal terms, would the reasonable person expect this individual to be able to make impartial decisions? It's not a standard of 'do they', it's 'does the public have confidence in him or her'.

Is that a fair standard? Could you think of one that would work better?

Not at work or by co-workers, silly. ;)

Hah but if you worked with the person in question and you did that you would find yourself fired.

Which is why, kiddies, you shouldn't be posting pictures of you doing stupid shit at work on your Facebook.


Remember, boys and girls, the xerox of your ass that you posted by the restrooms is anonymous but the phone-photo of you sitting on the copier that you thought was so fucking hilarious that you posted it on your Facebook is not.

Also, see everything Sdaeriji just posted as more depth to what I also said earlier.

The fact is, we all have the right to be who and what we are and express ourselves openly on our own time. But we must acknowledge that we take a personal risk by doing so. If I want to be a gay rights activist, but my employer is a homophobe, then if he gets wind of my activities, he may decide to "eliminate my position" because of it. I could fight it if I want, but I would be running the risk of losing my job anyway. Same with the employer who engages in hateful bigoted activities, or belongs to an extreme political group, or engages in an extreme sexual lifestyle, etc. Anything we do that could conceivably offend someone else -- rightly or wrongly -- creates the risk of us having a bad experience because of expressing our lawful views. That is just something we have to take into consideration when we decide to speak out in public.

I think the hypothetical is built upon the presumption that his employers DO find out it is him posting to the blog.

If his employers could demonstrate that the revelation of the blog led to a hostile work place, then they could terminate him for that. There would be no basis for wrongful termination if they could show that the public knowledge of his blog led to him being unable to fulfill the duties of his job.

I agree catch him/her at work posting and he/she is busted. If he/she does so only at home he/she could claim it is his kid or his wife/husband who is doing the posting not him/her.

One of my great assets - also one of my great flaws - is my ability and tendency to copycat my opponent. Check if what he does is legal and acceptable. If it isn't, try to get him fired. If it is, emulate him against himself.

It's good that you recognize that also as a flaw. As long as the copycatting is subject to your control (an ability, to be used or not) it's an asset. If you do it without meaning to it is a ... liability is the correct word. It could easily be used against you.

Of course, I don't know you. I'm just working with the words you use.

I recently stumbled across a really vile blog, full of unbelievable racism, and it got me thinking. If I was working with this man, and I knew he was publishing this shit (no I won't link to it), I'm fairly sure I'd try to get him fired. Or at least file a human rights complaint against him.

What do you denizens of NSG think? Imagine a person expressing truly misogynist, racist, or homophobic views all over the internet, including on forums...should that come to light, would it justify (in your mind) some sort of reaction on the part of his or her employers?

While I personally would feel appalled and disgusted, as long as he isn't doing anything illegal there's no real reason to fire him. If he behaves according to the company's code of conduct, that is.
The upside is, that someone who is likely to post views like that online can more or less be expected to break the code of conduct at one point or another (most of those I've seen so far include racial tolerance, female equality, and so on), and THAT's when you can indeed get him fired. And good riddance to him, too.

I agree catch him/her at work posting and he/she is busted. If he/she does so only at home he/she could claim it is his kid or his wife/husband who is doing the posting not him/her.
"My kid brother got on my computer" is not an excuse that is going to help him/her much in the grown-up world.

Depends on the job that person held.

If youre a factory worker, meh.

If youre a cop, you should lose your job.

That's the problem though...it's very difficult to prove active discrimination. This is why many public servants are enjoined from engaging in activities that would create a reasonable apprehension of bias. In legal terms, would the reasonable person expect this individual to be able to make impartial decisions? It's not a standard of 'do they', it's 'does the public have confidence in him or her'.
There are certainly people who have a clear separation of personal views and public conduct, and I'd perhaps contend your point that it's very difficult to prove active discrimination.

Obviously, not every discriminatory act will be picked up, but, to go back to my example of the homophobic adoption agency employee, if an employee is never allowing homosexual couples to adopt children, then administration is most probably going to notice; especially if their conduct is completely off of the norm.

As I've indicated previously, bigots are going to find it hard continuing employment in certain jobs.

Depends on the job that person held.

If youre a factory worker, meh.

If youre a cop, you should lose your job.

^This.

Remember, boys and girls, the xerox of your ass that you posted by the restrooms is anonymous but the phone-photo of you sitting on the copier that you thought was so fucking hilarious that you posted it on your Facebook is not.

Also, see everything Sdaeriji just posted as more depth to what I also said earlier.

The fact is, we all have the right to be who and what we are and express ourselves openly on our own time. But we must acknowledge that we take a personal risk by doing so. If I want to be a gay rights activist, but my employer is a homophobe, then if he gets wind of my activities, he may decide to "eliminate my position" because of it. I could fight it if I want, but I would be running the risk of losing my job anyway.

Could you clarify that? If you fight being dismissed from your job, you risk ... being dismissed from your job. Was that meant to be "losing my legal costs" or something?

Same with the employer who engages in hateful bigoted activities, or belongs to an extreme political group, or engages in an extreme sexual lifestyle, etc. Anything we do that could conceivably offend someone else -- rightly or wrongly -- creates the risk of us having a bad experience because of expressing our lawful views. That is just something we have to take into consideration when we decide to speak out in public.

I would that it were not so. But you're probably right.

"My kid brother got on my computer" is not an excuse that is going to help him/her much in the grown-up world.

True enough but

Advice:

Here is where you have to get friendly with your local network administrator. Let's suppose the site was Stormfront. The network admin sets up a filter to watch for anyone accessing the site from inside the network in question. The network admin finds the IP address for the computer making such a request. Bingo you got him/her. Now theft of resources comes into play especially if the organization in question has a policy against this type of use.

I agree catch him/her at work posting and he/she is busted. If he/she does so only at home he/she could claim it is his kid or his wife/husband who is doing the posting not him/her.

If he posts from work, then it's cut and dry. He's gone, and there isn't a thing in the world that he can do to fight it. Misuse of company resources alone would be enough to terminate him, much less terminating him for reflecting poorly upon the company while in an official capacity.

But what I'm saying is that if his posts were vile enough, and became public knowledge at his company, that alone would be enough to cause a hostile work environment. For example, if amongst his posts were comments that black people were subhuman and should return to slavery, or that all gays should be rounded up and executed, and those statements became public knowledge at his company, could you reasonably expect a black person or a gay person to work productively with him? What if his job depended on him interfacing with people who he directed his vitrol at on his blog? A gay person would have a completely reasonable demand not to work with that man. If his job required him to interface with people who found his views too intimidating/frightening/discomforting/insulting to continue working with him, then he could not satisfy his job requirements, and would need to be replaced by someone who could.

The company can only be expected to accomodate him so far. If his views are so repulsive that no one is comfortable working with him, then he needs to go.

Depends on the job that person held.

If youre a factory worker, meh.

If youre a cop, you should lose your job.

Do you mean that it should only matter in jobs that are also positions of authority?

Depends on the job that person held.

If youre a factory worker, meh.

If youre a cop, you should lose your job.

What's the qualitative difference you're using to make the distinction?

There's also the question of 'hostile work environment'. If his activities are well known enough and disruptive enough to create a hostile work environment for his fellow employees, then as an employer, I don't think I'd care if the actual activities takes place outside of work.

What's the qualitative difference you're using to make the distinction?

A racist cop will likely screw someone over for DWB.

A racist cop will likely screw someone over for DWB.
That's not the kind of analysis I'm looking for. Dig deeper. What's the qualitative difference between a cop and a factory worker? You need to tie that qualitative difference into the justification for having higher standards for one than the other.


And we call it DWI here :D

Generally, as a government employee, I'd say no. Freedom of speech and all that. It's a very gray area if firing someone over his out of work comments qualifies as "prohibiting" that speech.

If he posts from work, then it's cut and dry. He's gone, and there isn't a thing in the world that he can do to fight it. Misuse of company resources alone would be enough to terminate him, much less terminating him for reflecting poorly upon the company while in an official capacity.

But what I'm saying is that if his posts were vile enough, and became public knowledge at his company, that alone would be enough to cause a hostile work environment. For example, if amongst his posts were comments that black people were subhuman and should return to slavery, or that all gays should be rounded up and executed, and those statements became public knowledge at his company, could you reasonably expect a black person or a gay person to work productively with him? What if his job depended on him interfacing with people who he directed his vitrol at on his blog? A gay person would have a completely reasonable demand not to work with that man. If his job required him to interface with people who found his views too intimidating/frightening/discomforting/insulting to continue working with him, then he could not satisfy his job requirements, and would need to be replaced by someone who could.

The company can only be expected to accomodate him so far. If his views are so repulsive that no one is comfortable working with him, then he needs to go.

I agree. One should be curious on how it would be "common knowledge" that he/she was the one posting. If the person brags in the lunch room then that is one thing but if not then I think we still have a lack of evidence. You could also look at his/her work ethics while on the job, review cases/tasks which the person worked on looking for obvious discrimination.


However if there is Union in question then things become even more complicated. Let's face it we all want to see this person be held accountable for their words but you have to be careful.

What's the qualitative difference you're using to make the distinction?
Do you mean that it should only matter in jobs that are also positions of authority?
In one of those examples, hatred of a certian group, even if your activites are done purely off the clock will impact your work and has the potential to really fuck people's lives up. Hence my cop example.

If you are a racist factory worker, there isnt much damage your racism can do on the clock, aside from harassing co-workers, in which case you can be fired for totally different reasons.

That's not the kind of analysis I'm looking for. Dig deeper. What's the qualitative difference between a cop and a factory worker? You need to tie that qualitative difference into the justification for having higher standards for one than the other.


And we call it DWI here :D

Driving While Indian?

A racist cop will likely screw someone over for DWB.

And is a racist factory worker not likely to screw over a fellow factory worker by creating an environment so hostile the co-worker cannot function in it, or even by badmouthing the co-worker behind his back and attempting to get him fired for some trumped up reason?

Note: I have had personal experience with a co-worker who decided she did not like me trying to get me fired. It did not work because I got wind of it and defended myself to HR and my supervisor, and it had nothing at all to do with racist or any other kind of bigotry. It was just personal animosity, but it still harmed my ability to work effectively and, if I had not been able to put a stop to it, it could have cost me my job. (The person was making false accusations that I had stolen from the company.)

So please explain how such personal hostility should earn a "meh" just because it's coming from a private citizen.

I agree. One should be curious on how it would be "common knowledge" that he/she was the one posting. If the person brags in the lunch room then that is one thing but if not then I think we still have a lack of evidence. You could also look at his/her work ethics while on the job, review cases/tasks which the person worked on looking for obvious discrimination.


However if there is Union in question then things become even more complicated. Let's face it we all want to see this person be held accountable for their words but you have to be careful.

I agree the method that it became public would be important. If someone found it and purposely broadcast it to the company with the intent of harming that man, then they should face punishment as well, perhaps as far as termination. But, once it's publicized and confirmed as his, it's too late. The company couldn't not act on complaints based on the fact that the man didn't want the blog to become well-known. The cat is out of the proverbial bag.

I've never actually dealt with a union contract in my professional life, but I don't see why there wouldn't exist clauses that would cover harrassment and hostile work environment situations.

And is a racist factory worker not likely to screw over a fellow factory worker by creating an environment so hostile the co-worker cannot function in it, or even by badmouthing the co-worker behind his back and attempting to get him fired for some trumped up reason?

In that situation he can be fired for harassment, and his racism, while it was the cause of his harassment, isnt the reason he was fired.

If it's a private enterprise? Sure, he can get fired. They have to worry about their image cast upon them by good and bad employees, on and off the job, as much as any other kind of marketing. It simply depends on how "vile" his espoused views are, how valuable his position is and whether or not he can be easily replaced.

A government job is a completely different story, however.

Ok, but on what grounds?

Are you talking about the legal definition of inciting hatred, which is a criminal matter, or possibly a human rights (administrative) matter? Or would this be covered by some other principles you can identify?

I don't know.

For the record, Im not terribly sympathetic to racists/homophobes/misogynists, so I could very well be convinced to change my opinion :p

In that situation he can be fired for harassment, and his racism, while it was the cause of his harassment, isnt the reason he was fired.
That's not the same as taking a "meh" attitude towards it, however. You might want to check out what Sdaeriji and I have been saying about this to see if you have any comments about our posts to make.

And is a racist factory worker not likely to screw over a fellow factory worker by creating an environment so hostile the co-worker cannot function in it, or even by badmouthing the co-worker behind his back and attempting to get him fired for some trumped up reason?

Note: I have had personal experience with a co-worker who decided she did not like me trying to get me fired. It did not work because I got wind of it and defended myself to HR and my supervisor, and it had nothing at all to do with racist or any other kind of bigotry. It was just personal animosity, but it still harmed my ability to work effectively and, if I had not been able to put a stop to it, it could have cost me my job. (The person was making false accusations that I had stolen from the company.)

So please explain how such personal hostility should earn a "meh" just because it's coming from a private citizen.

Never said it'd not merit attention, just that a racist with police powers can do more damage.

just one example. Notice how long it takes for the matter to be resolved

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19901023&slug=1100085


Dismissal For Sexual Harassment Is Upheld -- Union Contract Is Superseded

By Frank Swoboda

Washington Post

Over the years, William Waters had a certain way of dealing with female co-workers, which is precisely what got him fired.

According to court papers, when Waters, a printer for the New York newspaper Newsday, would pass by a female co-worker, ``certain offensive and unauthorized contact took place,'' a pattern the courts said continued over a five-year period until Waters was fired on grounds of sexual harassment in the summer of 1988.

But Waters, a member of the Communications Workers of America union, thought that the dismissal was unfair and appealed his case to an arbitrator under the terms of his union contract.

A year later, the arbitrator ruled that Waters must be reinstated because Newsday had not followed the contract requirements that the company build a record against him with warnings that would justify his dismissal.

Newsday refused to take him back and took the case to court.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the firing on what could be precedent-setting grounds. If there is a clearly stated public policy - in this case that sexual harassment in the workplace is forbidden - that doctrine takes priority over the terms of the union contract.

``In sum,'' the court said in its ruling, ``there is an explicit, well-defined and dominant public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace.''

The court said the arbitrator's reinstatement order ``completely disregarded the public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace.''

The effect of the ruling, it said, was to ``perpetuate a hostile, intimidating and offensive work environment'' that prevents Newsday from carrying out its legal duty to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace.

In upholding a lower-court decision, the appellate court found that a court can refuse to enforce an arbitrator's award if it's contrary to public policy. As a result, it said, the courts ``may refuse to enforce (labor) contracts that violate law or public policy.''

Waters' attorney, Alan Wolin, warned that the court may be setting a ``dangerous precedent'' and said he is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Wolin said the ruling removes any flexibility an arbitrator might have. ``I think the court has mandated that an employee be fired,'' he said.

Wolin called the actions by Waters ``very innocuous acts.'' He said ``what Waters had done was not so serious as to warrant dismissal.'' He said his client had already been off the job without pay for a year when he was ordered reinstated without back pay.

Alison Wetherfield of the National Organization for Women's legal defense and education fund, agreed that the case sets a precedent, but to her it's a precedent worth setting. Both NOW and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed briefs in support of Newsday in the Waters case.

``I hope it sets a strong precedent,'' she said. ``More and more arbitrators are going to have to deal with sexual harassment. This is an important message, and I hope at the very least the word will be out among arbitrators.''

Wetherfield noted that Waters had been suspended by an arbitrator for several days in 1983 for sexual harassment with a warning against further incidents.

Brad Coupe, an attorney with Morgan Lewis & Bockius who represented Newsday, said appeals courts have been extremely reticent about applying the public-policy standard because the policies often are much too murky. He said the Waters case was significant because the policy against sexual harassment was so clear-cut.

A lower court, in initially upholding the dismissal, ruled that to reinstate Waters was to ``compel his female co-workers to submit to his sexual harassment (conduct of which he has been repeatedly adjudicated) as a condition of their employment.'' Such an action, the lower court ruled, would ``permit his sexual harassment to threaten to perpetuate a hostile, intimidating and offensive work environment.''

In upholding Waters' dismissal, both courts cited EEOC rules against sexual harassment. The court cited the EEOC compliance manual, which states that ``unwelcome, intentional touching of a charging party's intimate body areas is sufficiently offensive to alter the conditions of her working environment and constitute a violation of (the 1964 Civil Rights Act). More so than in the case of verbal advances or remarks, a single unwelcomed physical advance can seriously poison the victim's working environment.''


The Good guys eventually win. It can take a very long time. We are talking touching here so you can imagine how long it will take for talking.

diplomacy is needed at times to get a point across. the truth is often very ugly and we do not want ugly beautiful seems to be more convincing!! blahhh

So it would be easier in these situations to exclude people who publicly expressed really vile opinions. Of course that would just make it super obvious that some evil Jew wrote the codes in question.

Ok, but banning 'vile opinions' isn't helpful. Who's definition of vile? The person's immediate supervisor? Their supervisor's supervisor? The CEO's? The President's? Public consensus? The person in question?

The problem with your line of thought is that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. When that translates into actions that interfere with their job, then yeah, thats definately a fireable offense. I work at Wal*Mart, and say for example that I hated black people (which I don't, but that example comes to mind because I live in a fairly white-heavy area), well, I can hate black people all I want, but so long as I give them the customer service I'm supposed to (actually... Wal*Marts standards could be higher, we need to impress customer service ideals on the crowd of youngin's working there) then does it matter how vile my opinions are? Contrarily... what if I merely had a distaste for black people, but let that distaste show, nothing 'vile' so much as a little wrong-headed, but if I let that interfere with my job, then I certainly deserve to lose it.

just one example. Notice how long it takes for the matter to be resolved

The Good guys eventually win. It can take a very long time. We are talking touching here so you can imagine how long it will take for talking.

No one said it would be easy and simple. The employee would almost certainly sue for wrongful termination. We could only hope that the court would have a level head and recognize the reasoning for the termination.

It's a predicament that companies frequently find themselves in, in cases of harassment. If they respond to the harassment with a termination, then they are frequently met with a wrongful termination suit. If they attempt to remedy the situation while not terminating the offender, then the run the risk of a suit from the harassed. Damned if you do....

Driving While Indian?

Precisely!

Nope, freedom of expression.
There is no guarantee that you are permitted to freely express yourself without consequences. Not in the U.S., anyway. The only legal guarantee that I know of is that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

I think we have a winner. Notice the part on harassment inside or outside the workplace. This is from April 2008.


http://www.blaney.com/resources/contentfiles/blaney/Resources/newsletterissue/employment-notes-april-2008/pdf/employnotes_apr08.pdf
Excerpt:

In Bill 29, “harassment” is defined as “engaging
in a course of vexatious comment or conduct
that constitutes a threat to the health and safety
of a worker and that is known or ought reasonably
to be known to be unwelcome and that
may adversely affect the worker’s psychological
or physical well-being”. Bill 29 also includes a
definition of “workplace related harassment or
violence” which includes:
(a) harassment or violence, whether or not the
harassment or violence occurs at the workplace,
by,
(i) a workers’ employer or supervisor,
(ii) another worker who works at the same
workplace,
(iii) a client, patient, customer or other person
who receives services from the employer,
(iv) an agent, representative or family member
of a person described in (i) to (iii), or
(v) any other person on the employer’s
premises, or
(b) harassment or violence that has the effect of
interfering with the performance or safety of
any worker at the workplace or that creates an
intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment
for any worker.
Repeated conduct or comments or a single,
serious occurrence that has lasting and harmful
effect constitutes harassment for the purposes
of this proposed amendment. And, in a significant
step, Bill 29 proposes that a worker may
refuse to do work or do particular work where
s/he has reason to believe that workplace related
harassment is likely to endanger him/herself or
another worker. In these cases, an inspector will
be appointed to investigate and the person will
be deemed to be at work and will continue to be
paid.
At this early stage, what the impact of such
proposed changes will be is unclear. That being
said, it is foreseeable that the existence of a
forum and process to address workplace harassment
concerns short of a constructive dismissal
claim



Did I mention I love research.

it really depends. after all, as people know what this person thinks, even tho (s)he can still do their jobs, how others interact with that person can change. knowing that such and such holds an unpopular viewpoint can consitute as creating a 'hostile workplace'.

Take Hulk Hogan's comments that he 'Completely gets O.J. Simpson' when talking about his (Hogan's) divorce... that will cast the man in a totally different light. Even if he was only 'making an offhand comment'.

And what if, in your position, you are dealing with the very populations you are hatefully villifying online?

I am thinking particularly in terms of adminstrative functions, in some sort of governmental capacity. If you are making choices that could impact the rights of certain people, I think that publishing that sort of content publicly would be enough to create a reasonable apprehension of bias, which in a judicial context would be enough to get an administrative review.

Still in that context, outside of a decision-making capacity, should the government employ people who express those kinds of views? Would that be damaging to public confidence?

While, yes, it would behoove administrators to keep a closer eye on the individuals work to see if there is any detectable bias, merely publishing tripe should not be sufficient grounds to cease employing an individual, especially if it turns out that they are doing their job fairly and within the existing bounds of law.

That's not the kind of analysis I'm looking for. Dig deeper. What's the qualitative difference between a cop and a factory worker? You need to tie that qualitative difference into the justification for having higher standards for one than the other.


And we call it DWI here :D
I believe Heikoku meant Driving While Black.

I believe Heikoku meant Driving While Black.Yes. I was giving him our version.

Provided it's on their own time, and provided they don't attach their employer to it, then I don't think an employer should be able to fire somebody just for having ideas they don't like.

But I'm biased as all hell on this one, because I'm a queer feminist atheist and pretty much everybody with money hates what I have to say, yet I still need work. :P

If someone's views do not interfere with his ability to do the job he's hired to do in a professional manner, they should not cost him the job.

I recently stumbled across a really vile blog, full of unbelievable racism, and it got me thinking. If I was working with this man, and I knew he was publishing this shit (no I won't link to it), I'm fairly sure I'd try to get him fired. Or at least file a human rights complaint against him.

What do you denizens of NSG think? Imagine a person expressing truly misogynist, racist, or homophobic views all over the internet, including on forums...should that come to light, would it justify (in your mind) some sort of reaction on the part of his or her employers?

How does he behave at work? Does he do his job? Is he a good employee?

Honestly, I would work alongside a Skinhead as long as he did his job. I'd just ignore everything that he has to say. As long as he does do his job, and do all of his racist thing on the internet, or in private then I don't see any reason to fire him.

Although, I'd also hope that people who hold these sorts of views would self-select away from lines of work in which their primary interface would be with those who they hate.

How does he behave at work? Does he do his job? Is he a good employee?

Honestly, I would work alongside a Skinhead as long as he did his job. I'd just ignore everything that he has to say. As long as he does do his job, and do all of his racist thing on the internet, or in private then I don't see any reason to fire him.

Awwww. Isn't it nice to be white.

Provided it's on their own time, and provided they don't attach their employer to it, then I don't think an employer should be able to fire somebody just for having ideas they don't like.

But I'm biased as all hell on this one, because I'm a queer feminist atheist and pretty much everybody with money hates what I have to say, yet I still need work. :P

This is the other side of it, yes. If we use 'community standards' to decide what is vile and what is not, there's certainly no guarantee that it's going to be the bigots being viewed in a poor light. You baby-killing, c*nt guzzling man and god hating trollop!

How does he behave at work? Does he do his job? Is he a good employee?

Honestly, I would work alongside a Skinhead as long as he did his job. I'd just ignore everything that he has to say. As long as he does do his job, and do all of his racist thing on the internet, or in private then I don't see any reason to fire him.

What if you worked with a man who publicly thought that all white people should be raped and executed?

Awwww. Isn't it nice to be white.

It really isn't. We get all crispy when we go out in the sun.

What if you worked with a man who publicly thought that all white people should be raped and executed?

*raises hand*

I worked with a guy who openly asserted that queer women should be raped until they're straight and obedient.

Funny thing is, I've yet to meet a true bigot who is capable of being that hateful and yet NOT having it spill over onto their job. My rape-loving coworker eventually got fired for sexually harassing customers.

I think if you can keep it out of the work place, you shouldn't lose your job. However, I haven't met many true bigots that can keep their mouths shut for any extended period of time.

I also think if you're easily identifiable as working for <company> then you should be careful. My husband's company fired a man who had a rather disgusting blog complete with child rape fantasies and in his profile on the left the name of the company he worked for. They didn't want to be associated I guess.

*raises hand*

I worked with a guy who openly asserted that queer women should be raped until they're straight and obedient.

Funny thing is, I've yet to meet a true bigot who is capable of being that hateful and yet NOT having it spill over onto their job. My rape-loving coworker eventually got fired for sexually harassing customers.

I take it he was volunteering to rape her straight, or did he just not like women questioning his male authority?

If he's on the clock and using company computers to do it, report his ass.

I take it he was volunteering to rape her straight, or did he just not like women questioning his male authority?
Meh. He was kind of a sploogy puddle of insecurity, to be honest, I never bothered to sort out his various neuroses.

I worked along side him for a couple months before he got fired, though. He had made his "rape 'em straight" comments while several of us (coworkers) were out after work one day, so he wasn't fired for saying that shit off the clock. Being the heinous c*nt-guzzling abortion harpy that I am, I did mention it to the manager, but also mentioned that I didn't care if they fired him as long as I was allowed to ignore him. I assumed (correctly) that he would flame out on his own soon enough.

I worked with a guy who openly asserted that queer women should be raped until they're straight and obedient.

1- Get him jailed for sexual harrassment.
2- Tell inmates about his views.
3- ????
4- PROFIT!

This:

If the views impacted upon the person's work, and the work affected the public in some way, then I think reaction is valid. You shouldn't have xenophobes working at immigration centres or homophobes working at (public) adoption agencies, etc.

It's about conflict of interests, really. If an organisations stated aim is to provide a public service that does not discriminate, then having an employee who discriminates is obviously not working towards that aim.

But not this:

Having, say, a racist working in your local corner shop, however, seems small fry; depending on their actions obviously.

It shouldn't matter how big the job is, just how much his personal views impact it.

Meh. He was kind of a sploogy puddle of insecurity, to be honest, I never bothered to sort out his various neuroses.

I worked along side him for a couple months before he got fired, though. He had made his "rape 'em straight" comments while several of us (coworkers) were out after work one day, so he wasn't fired for saying that shit off the clock. Being the heinous c*nt-guzzling abortion harpy that I am, I did mention it to the manager, but also mentioned that I didn't care if they fired him as long as I was allowed to ignore him. I assumed (correctly) that he would flame out on his own soon enough.

While you can say that he wasn't fired for what he said, it probably was taken into account when the sexual harrasement complaint was reported...

While you can say that he wasn't fired for what he said, it probably was taken into account when the sexual harrasement complaint was reported...
Considering that the harassment happened in front of the manager who fired him, I doubt that it really mattered. :)

But I like your spin on it, simply because it means I helped to ruin a rapefan's day. :D

Considering that the harassment happened in front of the manager who fired him, I doubt that it really mattered. :)

But I like your spin on it, simply because it means I helped to ruin a rapefan's day. :D

... so he wasn't just a rapefan... but a STUPID rapefan. :tongue:

still... with your report, what might've been a warning or a 'written report'/suspension ended up being a firing. Yay Bottle!

... so he wasn't just a rapefan... but a STUPID rapefan. :tongue:

There is another kind?

There is another kind?

I'm sure you're a bit of a rapefan. I remember posts from you wishing brutal rape on people.

Awwww. Isn't it nice to be white.

What if you worked with a man who publicly thought that all white people should be raped and executed?

*shrugs* As long as he does his job, doesn't bring it into the workplace, keeps it online and in his private life, I don't care. This has nothing about being white, or being any type of race, it's about whether or not a person can do the job even though that person is a racist.

Now obviously if he was spouting this stuff in the workplace, yea there would be a problem. However, if he is not, and keeping it online, or in private, then he shouldn't be fired.

How can anyone who holds such strong racism views ever be good at their job? Unless they work in a white only workplace then they have to interact with other races and that racism will come through.

How can anyone who holds such strong racism views ever be good at their job? Unless they work in a white only workplace then they have to interact with other races and that racism will come through.

and when it does, then you have a problem for the company to deal with.

I thought we've learned from Iraq that preemptive strikes in general were not a good idea.

and when it does, then you have a problem for the company to deal with.

I thought we've learned from Iraq that preemptive strikes in general were not a good idea.

How would it not though? If you hold beliefs as strong as the ones described in the OP then there's no way that you would be able to stop them coming through in your work, however slightly.

How would it not though? If you hold beliefs as strong as the ones described in the OP then there's no way that you would be able to stop them coming through in your work, however slightly.

I've already agree that if it seeps into the work place then yes it is a problem. But what about before?

Ok, let's say I hire someone, and he holds views that Whitey should be killed and that the Blacks should run America. Would I really be justified in firing him base on what he writes in his blog if he actually does do a good job and kept his racist views to himself during work hours?

I've already agree that if it seeps into the work place then yes it is a problem. But what about before?

Ok, let's say I hire someone, and he holds views that Whitey should be killed and that the Blacks should run America. Would I really be justified in firing him base on what he writes in his blog if he actually does do a good job and kept his racist views to himself during work hours?

Yes, assuming you can find something to get him on and you can always find something to fire someone with if you want rid. I wouldn't want a known racist in my workplace, not only because I find thier views unpleasant but because there is a good chance it will cause friction with other employees.

Yes, assuming you can find something to get him on and you can always find something to fire someone with if you want rid. I wouldn't want a known racist in my workplace, not only because I find thier views unpleasant but because there is a good chance it will cause friction with other employees.

The only way that will work if you fire all racist base on their blogs reglardless of their skin color. Otherwise that person would be able to sue the company for wrongful termination. He'll argue that his racist views did not prevent him from performing his job, and if it did not, then the company is going to be hit in the pockets.

The only way that will work if you fire all racist base on their blogs reglardless of their skin color. Otherwise that person would be able to sue the company for wrongful termination. He'll argue that his racist views did not prevent him from performing his job, and if it did not, then the company is going to be hit in the pockets.

So don't fire him based on his blog. It's easy enough to manage someone out of a business.

There is another kind?

yes. the smart and cunning rapefan.

So don't fire him based on his blog. It's easy enough to manage someone out of a business.

Do you get the feeling that we're on the same page....?

Do you get the feeling that we're on the same page....?

I'm not sure. My point is that I wouldn't be happy having a known racist on my workforce but I'm smart enough to know that firing him based on his beliefs would put me in a very difficult position legally, so I'd just find another way to get rid of him.

Is that your position?

It shouldn't matter how big the job is, just how much his personal views impact it.
That's what I meant; unless he is, say, refusing to sell papers to black people on principle, I don't see how his views would affect others (and how do you deal with a self-employed racist?).

That's what I meant; unless he is, say, refusing to sell papers to black people on principle, I don't see how his views would affect others (and how do you deal with a self-employed racist?).

I'm currently learning to drive and my instructor made a comment I considered to be racist. He was drawing diagrams of positions of pedestrians crossing intersections to explain when you can and can't go, I made a joke along the lines of "So we can't use them as target practice?" (poor I know but I was nervous). He laughed and said "No, but it depends what colour they are.", he is no longer my driving instructor.

That is how you deal with self-employed racists.

I'm currently learning to drive and my instructor made a comment I considered to be racist. He was drawing diagrams of positions of pedestrians crossing intersections to explain when you can and can't go, I made a joke along the lines of "So we can't use them as target practice?" (poor I know but I was nervous). He laughed and said "No, but it depends what colour they are.", he is no longer my driving instructor.

Didn't occur to you he may have been joking too?

Didn't occur to you he may have been joking too?

I was my second lesson, all he knew about me was my work place and my tendancy to forget to put the car in first gear at traffic lights. He didn't know me well enough to make jokes based on race.

I recently stumbled across a really vile blog, full of unbelievable racism, and it got me thinking. If I was working with this man, and I knew he was publishing this shit (no I won't link to it), I'm fairly sure I'd try to get him fired. Or at least file a human rights complaint against him.

What do you denizens of NSG think? Imagine a person expressing truly misogynist, racist, or homophobic views all over the internet, including on forums...should that come to light, would it justify (in your mind) some sort of reaction on the part of his or her employers?

In the US, this is much easier. Since most US states are 'at will', the decision to retain or remove the employee is at the discretion of the employer.

I was my second lesson, all he knew about me was my work place and my tendancy to forget to put the car in first gear at traffic lights. He didn't know me well enough to make jokes based on race.

yet it was fine for you to make a comment about running people over?

yet it was fine for you to make a comment about running people over?

Yes as mine wasn't based on race, I was all for running down everyone I could see.

Let me clarify, I was having my second driving lesson so I was nervous and as such an awful lot can be forgiven including bad jokes. He is a professional driving instructor, racist comments are not appropriate.

I'm not sure. My point is that I wouldn't be happy having a known racist on my workforce but I'm smart enough to know that firing him based on his beliefs would put me in a very difficult position legally, so I'd just find another way to get rid of him.

Is that your position?

Eh more or less. I'd just wait till he slips up enough time to warrant being terminated.

While I detest racial attitudes and beliefs, I'm not going to fire someone over them. However, firing someone for creating a hostile work environment, harassment and misconduct is something I would fire him over.

yet it was fine for you to make a comment about running people over?
You can't tell the difference between a racist joke-in-bad-taste and non-racist joke-in-bad-taste? Is that why you're trying to dismiss his example of a racist joke by holding it to the same standard as a non-racist joke?

And let me ask you this: Granting that it's not okay to make a joke about running people over, what possible effect can that have on the anecdote he told? Was he supposed to punish himself for his own poor humor by continuing to patronize a racist instructor?

Yes as mine wasn't based on race, I was all for running down everyone I could see. which could indicate homocidal tendicies.

Let me clarify, I was having my second driving lesson so I was nervous and as such an awful lot can be forgiven including bad jokes. He is a professional driving instructor, racist comments are not appropriate. ah, but as the instrutor, one of his jobs is to put YOU at ease because you are going to be handling a heavy vehicle and as my driving instructor said, "if you're too tense, to worked up, you will make mistakes and that is bad in a car." so he could be joking to put you at ease since you felt the need to joke.

You can't tell the difference between a racist joke-in-bad-taste and non-racist joke-in-bad-taste? Is that why you're trying to dismiss his example of a racist joke by holding it to the same standard as a non-racist joke? no. the point is a joke is a joke. if someone can be labeled as a racist for a bad joke, then Fartsniffage can be labeled someone with homicidal tendices with his joke. and as the instructor, the fact that his student was joking about running people over, he had every right to end the lession right then and there. however, the instructor took FS's joke for what it was. a coping mechanism and attempted to calm a nervous student with a joke of his own (yes, one in bad taste, but not indicative of being a 'racist'.)

And let me ask you this: Granting that it's not okay to make a joke about running people over, what possible effect can that have on the anecdote he told? Was he supposed to punish himself for his own poor humor by continuing to patronize a racist instructor?
Why mention the instructor as a "Self Employed Racist" for one joke. granted, if he proved to be racist by other means outside of One Joke. then fine. but from Fartsniffage's post, it was one joke during the second lession.

no. the point is a joke is a joke. if someone can be labeled as a racist for a bad joke, then Fartsniffage can be labeled someone with homicidal tendices with his joke. and as the instructor, the fact that his student was joking about running people over, he had every right to end the lession right then and there. however, the instructor took FS's joke for what it was. a coping mechanism and attempted to calm a nervous student with a joke of his own (yes, one in bad taste, but not indicative of being a 'racist'.)


Why mention the instructor as a "Self Employed Racist" for one joke. granted, if he proved to be racist by other means outside of One Joke. then fine. but from Fartsniffage's post, it was one joke during the second lession.
It's called a tongue-in-cheek answer to a broad question.

Q: How to deal with self-employed racists?

A: Don't do business with them.

Illustration: Personal anecdote that is not 100% on point but is a mildly melodramatic demonstration of choosing not to do business with someone who says something you don't like.

So, on the basis of the use of that one story to add color to that one answer, are you going to take up arms in defense of the poor, maligned driving instructor (whose mind you can read, apparently, I notice)?