Hiring Hypothetical involving Nazis

[downtown]

I'm reading some remarkably unexpected support of religious institutions firing gays here.

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?

 

[Cheetah]

Then you're jumping to conclusions about the rationale behind our posts.

Sorry bud, but we're under no moral or intellectual obligation to tolerate intolerance.
If you can't tell the difference between someone who is attracted to the same sex and someone who has chosen to actively support violent hatemongers then you are not as smart as you pretend to be.

Put simply, being gay doesn't hurt anyone, the KKK does.

[...]

I'm not ready to commit to "violence" or "force" as the necessary and sufficient condition for rendering political views as not protected by law as I haven't thought it through entirely, but this is my gut feel for where the line must be drawn. c.f. hate speech rendering things not protected by the 1st amendment. There is clearly a line between a belief that is protected by free speech and a belief that should be punished as an act of violence or threat of violence against an individual or group of individuals. You personally clearly draw the line somewhere; for example, it's uncontroversial that someone who funds Al Qaeda should not be protected by free speech / freedom of association laws. So we're just deciding where the line is. I draw it such that it protects gays and the vast majority of political beliefs, but excludes beliefs that involve, you know, lynching negroes.

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.

 

[Cutlass]

What if other employees refuse to work with him? Would you fire them instead? Sit them down and explain to them "well yes Larry is a Nazi who supports the extermination of your race from the Earth, but he really nailed that IT problem in accounting the other day"?

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

 

[Mise]

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, but they did 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.

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.

 

[lovett]

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.

 

[dutchfire]

As long as the groups he is supporting are not violating the law, I think it is okay.

 

[GinandTonic]

Well said mise

 

[Cheetah]

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...

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...

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

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

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.

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

 

[AlpsStranger]

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.

 

[potatokiosk]

It happens:



^ I wonder if they learned anything from that beatdown?

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.

 

[AlpsStranger]

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.

We must have enforced conformity if we're going to have diversity.

 

[downtown]

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.

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?

 

[AlpsStranger]

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.

 

[Yeekim]

I draw it such that it protects gays and the vast majority of political beliefs, but excludes beliefs that involve, you know, lynching negroes.

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!

 

[Mise]

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...

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...

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

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...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

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).

It would certainly involve the use of force on the part of the government...

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?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Yeah, what Cheezy said. Nobody in this thread would keep the guy around if he had pictures of Hitler on his desk and ****.

 

[ace99]

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?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Actually, I can't really disagree with any of that ace. I'm strangely disappointed

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.

 

[Mise]

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).

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:

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?

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.