Business owners stand by decision to fire workers who protested

I hope they do call for a boycott. They will get a boost in sales just like LL Bean. Whenever liberals try to hurt a business, they end up helping. In contrast, whenever liberals try to help, they end up causing more harm.

 

More like you claim many people think a certain way without evidence.

 

LOL I do love your lack of morality and ethics in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

 

It's spreading. Another Employer Stands Up to the Crazed Left Wing Mob, Finds They are Toothless

Attempt to Bully Wegman's Grocery Chain Into Dropping Trump Wine from Racks Backfires: Wine Sells Out, and Wegman's Stands Up to Bullies

Corporations always seem to think these pressure-groups are powerful dragons.

They're not. They're shadow-puppets on the wall, made by small, weak hands.

The most important political idea that no one's exploring is forming a 501(c)(3) which would have three missions:

1. To spread the idea that tolerance for ideas you don't like is itself brave and virtuous and absolutely fundamental to a free and functioning republic;

2. To criticize and condemn the social justice bullies who wish to bully people into shutting up or ostracizing others; and

3. To stick up for and praise people, institutions, and business that stand up for the right of citizens and businesses alike to go about their daily lives without being bullied every five seconds.

When the bullies go after institutions and companies, there's usually no one on the side arguing "A person shouldn't be fired just because he has political views some pressure group doesn't like" or "A company's first business is just serving its clientele's commercial needs, not pandering to the manifold needs of cultural and political affirmation."

It's not that there are so many people who are zealous bullies. There's a number of them, but this number is not overwhelming.

It's just that there is no damn organized resistance to them.

If ten weaklings show up to pick a fight and there's no one else there to fight back against them, then the ten weaklings win the fight.

You can't beat something with nothing.

This 501(c)(3) would have to be bipartisan and defend left-wingers whose scalps are hunted by right-wing mobs as well as those harassed by the left-wing mobs. However, this is no terrible thing because:

1. People with truth on their side should have no need of coercing people into accepting it, and

2. Rightwingers just don't do this as much as leftwingers, which is probably because

3. This almost never works for the rightwing scalp-hunters anyway, because the entire leftwing media rises up to defend the targets of rightwing scalp-hunters.

So we're giving away nothing at all, even for those people who like the idea of hunting leftwing scalps. You never win in your scalp-hunts; wouldn't it at least be nice to have an organization providing a defense against scalp-hunters, as leftwings do from their friends (and lovers) in the media?

By the way, this always comes up, so let me say it again: Yes, of course private businesses have the right to fire whoever they like, and people can boycott any business they like, and etc.

These are rights. People can do these things.

But in these censorious times, wouldn't it be nice to have an advocacy group dedicated to making the moral/socio-political case that people shouldn't inflict major economic damage on people over political tiffs?

And wouldn't it be nice to have a single advocacy group dedicated to pushing back against the many, many left-wing pressure groups who spend all their time hunting right-wing heretics?

Do you want the left to be the only player in the market for branding what is Forbidden and what is Mandatory? Personally, I'd like to see some vigorous competition in that market.

I'm proposing a sort of a FIRE for people who aren't in college.

Most of the time the people it advocates for won't have any legal right to demand a company not fire them, but I'm sure they would at least appreciate a professional organization making the case for personal freedom of thought for them on TV, and arguing against the scalp-hunting mob's demands that the heretic must be burned at the stake right this moment.

Most of their work would not be legal in nature, but simply hortatory, persuasive: We must stop this vicious culture of scalp-hunting if any of us are going to keep our heads intact.

And it would be nice to shame the shamers in return -- to point out how militant, dogmatic, zealous, and cultish they are.

And how hateful.

And how petty. And stupid.

And cruel.

We don't all have to agree, but we must agree on this one point: that we have the right to disagree without mobs seeking to punish us into conformity.

That way lies -- and I do not mean this metaphorically -- war.

A people can only agree to be ruled by a ruler not to his liking if that rule is relatively light-handed and does not extend into every corner of his life.

It is the state of man that he must suffer under a number of masters -- his boss, his customers, his obligations to provide for his family, his own limitations, his own tendencies towards sin and self-destruction -- that place a claim on 16 of his 18 waking hours per day.

No man should permit himself to be controlled by 100,000 masters who lay claim not just to all his waking hours, but his dreaming hours as well -- these pagan cultists even want to control the little fantasies you indulge yourself in books, movies, and videogames too.

And he should act with dispatch and grim seriousness of purpose if one hundred thousand such villains come forward declaring themselves to be his new masters.

Jim Geraghty writes about the growing social-media threat to your ability to express yourself, but I should note, his post is descriptive and he certainly doesn't endorse or even hint at the prescriptions or warnings I do in my post.

He makes a lot of points I've made since years back: the real threat to your right to expression comes not from the government (mostly -- thankfully), but from pressure groups telling your boss to fire you or your customers to desert you or there will be consequences.

We need something to push back against that, and not just a few articles here or there making the point. We need an advocacy group with a troupe of paid on-call lawyers and advocates who can go on CNN and Fox at a moment's notice to make the case for more social latitude for heterodox thought and less social coercion that we must only repeat the same approved hymnals from the same weird leftist bible of thought-control.

Dullards hate the interesting and unimaginitive -- different ideas unsettle and frighten them, and perhaps make them feel a bit self-conscious about their own dimness -- and will stop at very little to destroy those who oppress them with new (or forbidden) ideas.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/368505.php

 

Evidently you have never worked a construction job, where schedules are met or money is forfeited. Trust me, the customer paying for his masonry work or painting is not going to give a **** about your political beliefs , or your protest. He contracted you to do work, usually with a mutually agreed upon completion date. I'll let you guess what happens when word gets out that you don't meet your timeline because of supporting your employees right to protest.
If you READ the article the employer stated his position clearly: no show; no job. They made their choice. What happens next time they want to take off? They have already determined there will be no consequences.

 

Why? Do you think the employees should be allowed to run the business over the owner?

Protest on your own time or quit if you don't like it, you're not getting paid to take the day off and p*ss and moan because your candidate lost!

How many of them were illegal immigrants? How many just did not show up without informing their employer?

 

Again; I don't really give a damn about instant gratification that the US of A desires. The facts remain. Workers who have time off work better, harder, are more loyal and less likely to leave.

Facts.

I use them.

You rely instead on a social construct ie instant gratification to continue supporting the idea that the employees should come second to the job. Nonsense. All studies say otherwise and do not support the American workaholic culture.

 

If you don't go to work and don't call in with a good reason then you don't have a job to return to the next day, it is that simple. Joining a protest is not a good enough reason to take off work. If those people are stupid enough to just take off without even pretending to be sick then they deserve to lose their jobs.

 

Days or no days, in the majority of the stories I have read, the employees simply didn't show up for work. They didn't call in.

Are you advocating that a group of coworkers should be allowed to just not show up and there be no consequences?
In this case, what difference does it make it they had days or not? They didn't get it approved. They didn't even call in sick.

 

The employer is taking financial risks by agreeing to fulfill contracts in a timely manner. His employees agreed to show up on time ready to work. Since when is it the employers responsibility make sure employees have time off work with no notice to protest government policy?

 

Nah, I'm pretty spot on.

 

Well, the owner was certainly not in the wrong.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you

 

No show, no job. Its easy enough to follow.

I am glad the workers stood up for what they believed in, even if it lead to their deserved fate.

 

An employee's freedom of expression shouldn't be at the expense of a business owner's profits & production. And you're ignoring the fact that these idiots were warned but they did it anyway........now they have to face the consequences for making a stupid choice.

You do understand that the person who signs your paycheck is the boss and not you?

 

Did you feel this way When Kim Davis was using her religious beliefs & convictions as a legit reason for not performing her job?

She deserved to be fired like these 2 asshats did.

 

If morality is defined by doing the least harm, he should have made an arrangement with them to get the work done differently when they warned him they were going to protest. If he can afford to lose time finding 30 new workers, he can afford to do that. That is what a nice boss who deserves loyalty would do. If he wanted to be ruhless but efficient, he would use this as an excuse to can the least productive of the 30 as a warning/example to the others and an excuse to find a better employee. Firing all 30 at once is not good business, it's just his emotional reaction.

 

Yep. It isn't like this employer is discriminating unfairly against employees here. They chose to do something irresponsible and detrimental to their employer.

- - - Updated - - -

That's his affair. If he harms his own business by doing this, then so be it.

 

Typical of a left wing facist to say. Funny how you guys are always the ones crying "facism!" Yet you are the biggest perpetrators of it.

 

What these liberals don't understand that employment is basically a contract between a business and a person. The business agrees to pay the employee for specific work performed on specific days. The employee expects to be paid as per the deal. The business then goes out and makes deals with customers who are essentially the ones paying the salaries of the employees. The employee breaks his end of the bargain, the business is screwed, the customer is screwed, yet there are people on this board defending, actually defending, the people who did all the screwing. It's hard to believe we have people who actually think like that.

 

Kim Davis....wasn't she the one who's job was to issue marriage licenses, but she refused to for gay couples?

I'll repeat myself....that female had no right to sit in judgment of who should get a license or not. That wasn't part of her job description, for one thing. Yeah, that woman who had her 4th husband's baby while she was married to husband #2 or some such thing was way out of line and should have been fired on the spot.

A person's religious/political beliefs has no business in the work place.

In this case, it was not '2 asshats'. The article said the foreman and close to 30 bricklayers didn't show up for work b/c they tho't protesting was more important, so they were fired. That's what happens when they don't put on their big boy pants and decide keeping their job so they can put food on the table for their kids is more important than protesting.

 

Denial is the first stage.

 

Why?

Do you think employers should be forced to keep unreliable employees?

Do you think customers will keep patronizing businesses that may or may not be able to deliver goods and services, depending on whether someone scheduled a protest?

I am interested in your reasoning and how it accounts for how businesses compete for customers in the marketplace.

 

Absolutely she deserved to be fired. I was amazed that she was not summarily fired, complete with loss of benefits and state pension.

If you have a job, go to work and do the job. There is no shortage of people who need jobs, so if you are fortunate enough to have a job, it behooves you to show up, work hard, and make sure your boss has a good reason to keep you on the payroll.

 

I know it - it is mind boggling. These people live in the world of unicorns, rainbows and puppy kisses. "Oh hey! We need to skip work tomorrow and go protest! Ya know, we need to make our voices heard!".....and these are grown men and assuming many of them have kids to feed.....

No, no employer has to put up w/that juvenile crap. There's a saying 'no matter how good you are at your job, there's always someone out there who's better'....