1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Hiring Hypothetical involving Nazis

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by downtown, Apr 22, 2013.

?

What would you do in the OP?

  1. Who wants to have a Nazi on staff? I'd fire the guy.

    25.8%
  2. I'd keep the status quo and hope the situation doesnt blow up in my face

    35.5%
  3. I'd keep the employee but try to "hide" him from minority reporting

    6.5%
  4. I'd look to do something else.

    6.5%
  5. I have no idea

    3.2%
  6. I'd sell the company to Mitt Romney and let him fire everybody so I don't have to deal with it.

    22.6%
  1. downtown

    downtown Crafternoon Delight

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    19,541
    Location:
    Chicago
    Perhaps the difference is that this OP directly asked people to disregard laws, whereas the Catholic case was in violation of a law. Perhaps this is a good case study for why we need legislation to protect people from repercussions of unpopular belief?
     
  2. Cheetah

    Cheetah Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,002
    Location:
    the relative oasis of CFC
    Let me jump in with a few other examples:

    1. Green Peace supporters: Should they be fired? Green Peace activists harass whalers and offshore drilling crews, they board their vessels and are dangerously close using violence, if not already crossing it.
    2. Communists: As an example, we have a party called Red in Norway, which basically consists of all our real communists. I'm not sure if it is still part of their programme (or maybe it was one of the parties that merged to form it), but they did use to argue for a violent revolution when the time came. Should they be fired?

    This is really a question of how much dissent we should tolerate from other people. And it is an interesting one. I'll need to think a bit more about this.
     
  3. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    46,667
    Location:
    US of A

    The point at which his presence becomes an issue in the workplace is when he should be gone.
     
  4. Mise

    Mise isle of lucy

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    28,622
    Location:
    London, UK
    1) I don't know enough about Green Peace to comment on whether their practices are violent or not. If they are threatening violence, and they can be considered a group committed to achieving their aims by violent means, then no, I don't think they should be protected by free speech laws. If they are actively committing violence at present then obviously they should be punished anyway...

    2) It depends whether their call is for imminent revolution, whether they are advising their members to take arms, etc etc.

    Whether members of either groups "should" be fired isn't really relevant to what I'm talking about. Indeed, I'm sure that all of these groups can find gainful employment somewhere. I'm talking about whether these groups should be protected by free speech / freedom of association laws from being fired arbitrarily by employers with a moral objection to their personal political beliefs/activities.
     
  5. lovett

    lovett Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,570
    There is an interesting analogy between this situation and consumer boycotts. Firing this person is boycotting his (or her) labour. Boycotts are usually morally permissible. This is such a case where that 'usually' holds.
     
  6. dutchfire

    dutchfire Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    14,106
    Location:
    -
    As long as the groups he is supporting are not violating the law, I think it is okay.
     
  7. GinandTonic

    GinandTonic Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,876
    Well said mise :goodjob:
     
  8. Cheetah

    Cheetah Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,002
    Location:
    the relative oasis of CFC
    With 'Green Peace supporters' I was mostly thinking of people who morally or financially support the group. As such, I guess they would be protected by free speech laws as long as only 'some' members of the group commit violent acts...

    So if the Nazi in DT's example only calls for genocide at some unspecified time in the future...?

    Sorry, I'm still mixing in DT's example here because I thought it was a nice non-abstract starting point.
     
  9. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    So would you guys fire someone for being a big Kamau Kambon fan? The ragged, rotting remains of white supremacy are just about as likely to succeed with their idiotic vision as he is.

    EDIT: To be clear, I wouldn't fire this person either. Unless, as before, they started causing trouble.
     
  10. potatokiosk

    potatokiosk Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,292
    Obviously they learned the virtues of free speech, democracy and human rights after some thugs beat the crap out of them for expressing an opinion.
     
  11. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    We must have enforced conformity if we're going to have diversity.
     
  12. downtown

    downtown Crafternoon Delight

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    19,541
    Location:
    Chicago
    Yeah, and I think the potential for a boycott could also be a neat little wrinkle. Lets say this company did business in heavily jewish areas. Even if this guy was competent at work and didn't explicitly harass a co-worker, could simply knowingly employing a known Nazi be an unneeded liability, given that it might open the company up for a boycott?
     
  13. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    That's an interesting complication. I'm not sure what I would do. I can't deny that I no longer eat at Chic-fil-A, but that was also something someone at the tippity top of the company said in a public venue.

    I think there's a difference in a company filled to the brim with Nazis and one that has a quiet weirdo mopping up in the back, though.
     
  14. Yeekim

    Yeekim Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,427
    Location:
    Estonia
    Now that I've looked up David Duke's wiki page (the name previously said nothing to me) and seen that he, in words at least, denounces violence, I think I might let this supporter of his keep his job.
    Apparently being Grand Whoever of the KKK doesn't mean being in the negroe-lynching business any more. O tempora o mores!
     
  15. Mise

    Mise isle of lucy

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    28,622
    Location:
    London, UK
    Hmm, I think it would depend on whether committing violence is a necessary part of being Green Peace. For example, Al Qaeda is dedicated to committing violence and terrorism. The English Defence League (neo-Nazis in all but name) is dedicated to committing violence. If the same can be said about Green Peace then I'd say it was a violent group. That is, if Green Peace's MO is to commit violence then I'm not sure it should be protected. This is a rather woolly definition, admittedly...

    I don't know about your Red Party, but if they have a manifesto commitment to violent revolution (i.e. "if you vote for us and we win then we'll revolt violently"), then it doesn't matter when they think this will happen (or whether they think it will happen at all). If they've committed to violence in their manifesto pledge then this is a threat of violence. OTOH, if they're not a political party but just a group that sits around in community halls and university common rooms vaguely theorising about how, one day, there'll be a violent revolution, and they'll be on the winning side, then no, I don't think this is a threat of violence.

    Certainly a political party that has in their manifesto a pledge to get rid of all the blacks is a threat of violence, even if "get rid of" means "deport". It would certainly involve the use of force on the part of the government...
     
  16. Cheezy the Wiz

    Cheezy the Wiz Socialist In A Hurry

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Freedonia
    I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with your stance, so long as it applies purely to actions taken in the workplace. If someone brings that stuff to work with them, and spreads it around there to the objection of others, then yeah, a process should begin to either correct that or remove them (preferably the latter following the former; except in extreme cases, I am against immediate termination). But what the OP is talking about is someone who, as of now, has kept work and private life separate.

    At what point do you draw the line? Would you fire someone if you found out their wife/girlfriend/whatever was a stripper? Or a prostitute? What if they ate meat and you were vegetarian or vegan? What if you were a Rangers fan and they a Celtics fan? You have to make judgements at work purely about what happens while at work (or as I said, things that concern work by association, like if he wore what was clearly a company uniform to one of his White Power rallies).

    So can I fire Republicans for endorsing warmongering? Or proponents of capitalism in general for defending a system that is protected by force on the part of the government?

    See how ridiculously subjective this is getting?
     
  17. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    Yeah, what Cheezy said. Nobody in this thread would keep the guy around if he had pictures of Hitler on his desk and ****.
     
  18. ace99

    ace99 Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,455
    I think I see where the difficulty is, the question is asking a personal question, like if your family was murdered would you support the death penalty? To which the answer is yes. Now if the question was, do you support the death penalty, the answer is no. That may seem like a contradiction but its fairly simple. People aren't automatons. You'd have to either hate your family or be a robot to say otherwise. However, society and government and law shouldn't take into account my personal view nor act as my personal revenge.

    Similarly, do I support the notion that employment shouldn't be denied because of political belief or otherwise? Yes, quite. Now if I were the boss and I had an employee would beliefs that I found particularly loathsome would I attempt to deny them employment. Just so. Which is why there should be laws and government regulation to stop me from doing so. Because people are people and if I can be petty and mess with someone I find loathsome I will. Who would really say otherwise? It's like asking would you hire the ex-con who man-slaughtered your friend because you believe in rehabilitation right? Well no. Yet I can still believe in rehabilitation.

    Get what I'm saying?
     
  19. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    Actually, I can't really disagree with any of that ace. I'm strangely disappointed :p

    And it is interesting where I find myself. In my attempts to be as much of a pain in the ass as possible I find myself pulled in two by this thread and the Catholic gym teacher thread. At the end of the day I was just wrong in the gym teacher thread.

    Still, I'm uneasy. The common thread of my unease is the enforcement of a popular ideology over an unpopular one by force. I'm always nervous about that even though I've got no common interest with gay bashers or racists.

    EDIT: Bottom line is that employers are usually big and employees are usually small. So if consistency demands that we either protect employers or employees then it's inescapable that employees probably need the protection more.
     
  20. Mise

    Mise isle of lucy

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    28,622
    Location:
    London, UK
    Well, I've been describing where I draw the line.

    First of all, I think that people should be protected by the law from being fired "wrongfully", and part of that is that they shouldn't be fired for privately held political beliefs. This is in order to guarantee that we have meaningful freedom of speech. What I mean by "meaningful" is that, since we spend half of our waking lives at work, and since we are dependent on our employers for our very livelihoods, then if employers were allowed to trample on our freedom of speech, then we would not have freedom of speech in a "meaningful" sense. Of course, this does not mean that we should be allowed to say anything we want at work: we still have meaningful free speech even if we're not allowed to read aloud from the Bible during our lunch breaks. However, it does mean that our privately held political beliefs, and our lives outside of work more generally, should be off-limits, in order to ensure that we have meaningful free speech.

    However this argument only works where the speech in question is protected by free speech laws. What I am saying is that some speech -- hate speech -- is not protected by free speech laws. Thus, this kind of speech is not off-limits; an employer can legitimately fire an employee on the basis of speech that is not protected by free speech laws. I believe that, for example, a manifesto commitment to ridding the country of black people is indeed a threat of violence against black people, and thus is not protected by free speech laws. An employer ought to be able to fire the employee if they sign up to such a manifesto commitment.

    EDIT:
    I'm really just trying to describe hate speech. I've tried to "ignore the law" and tell you what I personally think thus far, but at this stage, it's beyond my expertise. I'm sure hate speech laws are written a lot better than I am writing them now, at 11:37pm, with absolutely no legal training whatsoever.

    And I'm sure that there are a whole bunch of people who think that hate speech laws are evil.
     

Share This Page