PDA

View Full Version : Job threatened by being pro-gun? Read this!


hoffmang
09-14-2007, 3:30 PM
All,

Dr. Volokh has posted a very interesting legal review of a California Statute that protects California employees from being fired for political views. Also note that it extends to more than just electioneering but includes all sorts of political speech due to case law.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_09-2007_09_15.shtml#1189794796


Here's the relevant statute, California Labor Code § 1101:

No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:

(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.

(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.


-Gene

Glock22Fan
09-14-2007, 3:45 PM
Presumably this doesn't stop employers from having rules about using their resources (such as web access) for such activities.

"We're not firing you for your political views, we're firing you for using our bandwidth (paper, photocopiers, phones etc.) to promote them."

hoffmang
09-14-2007, 4:03 PM
You would be surprised how hard that may be for a firm to make stick, especially if a lot of your surfing time is politically related and you can make even a base showing that the policy wasn't meted out fairly as compared to others in the office.

-Gene

metalhead357
09-14-2007, 4:46 PM
Well....yes and no; same argument here as on the others here that have posted they got fired....

Cali IS an "At will" employer-employee state. They can can your butt for litterally NOTHING...the only time peeps ever get introuble is when they DO actually say/list a reason of why yer' fired & potentially open themselves up to a lawsuit.

You walk in...they say..."You're done" and here's your check....... aint much recourse to be sought if they clam up.

But yes-- by all means throw the labor code at them if they DO indeed give a reason as it always seems 9 outta 10 of them stated do violate some aspect of the code.

pnkssbtz
09-14-2007, 5:06 PM
Well....yes and no; same argument here as on the others here that have posted they got fired....

Cali IS an "At will" employer-employee state. They can can your butt for litterally NOTHING...the only time peeps ever get introuble is when they DO actually say/list a reason of why yer' fired & potentially open themselves up to a lawsuit.

You walk in...they say..."You're done" and here's your check....... aint much recourse to be sought if they clam up.

But yes-- by all means throw the labor code at them if they DO indeed give a reason as it always seems 9 outta 10 of them stated do violate some aspect of the code.

The trick is the employer must give NO REASON for your firing. If they give a reason, then that reason must be legit.

As such when I have to fire an employee, I give no reason.

Despite being an at will state you are still liable for lawsuits.

metalhead357
09-14-2007, 5:21 PM
The trick is the employer must give NO REASON for your firing. If they give a reason, then that reason must be legit.

As such when I have to fire an employee, I give no reason.

Despite being an at will state you are still liable for lawsuits.


Yep and same here; They'd walk in...I'd escort them down the hall and sit them down in front of thier check, ask for thier keys and say its been a pleasure working for you while it lasted- unfortunately your services are no longer required...please collect your personal items now and leave the building once this has been done.

((ALWAYS....ALWAYS... the blank stare)) and they ask....Why....

And the response..... Because YOUR services are no longer required.

It is/was nerve racking about the first dozen times I had to do it...but seriously got to the point of why care? *our* employer HAD given peeps multiple warnings and multiple times to correct any problem(s) and had a kick butt grievience route.....so when/if they go to me and the point in time to be firing them....as they say...They just HAD to go.....

But yes....we had some end up in arbitration and a few in front of a labor panel....NONE ever won.

bwiese
09-14-2007, 5:32 PM
Presumably this doesn't stop employers from having rules about using their resources (such as web access) for such activities.

"We're not firing you for your political views, we're firing you for using our bandwidth (paper, photocopiers, phones etc.) to promote them."

Yes, but if you have 10 roughly similar employees in violation of the web browsing rules - doing Matchup.com or whatever, selling jam-jar lids on EBay, orl ooking for a room or a car on Craigslist - but the one dude that gets fired is hitting Calguns.net and NRA.org, and spending about the same amount of avg time as others on non-work web activities, then you have a difference that is articulably political.

Glock22Fan
09-14-2007, 5:47 PM
Yes, but if you have 10 roughly similar employees in violation of the web browsing rules - doing Matchup.com or whatever, selling jam-jar lids on EBay, orlooking for a room or car on Craigslist - but the one dude that gets fired is hitting Calguns.net and NRA.org, and spending about the same amount of avg time as others on non-work web activities then you have a difference that is articulably political.

That makes sense.

metalhead357
09-14-2007, 7:02 PM
It does make sense but pretty much sets an employee up to be a watchdog LONG before they get fired and keeping a daily journal & keeping track of most everyone else's browsing habits...... kinda hard to do when ya' just wanna surf!!!!!!!

Even one other employee getting reprimanded for some OTHER (non political) site browsing and the case comes crashing down. As far as I know there aint no requirement on WHEN the other reprimands/firings would have to occur; Emploer does it the day before arbitration/hearing and they could straight face-edly say they HAVE done it to others and your case is kaput

ibanezfoo
09-14-2007, 7:55 PM
You would be surprised how hard that may be for a firm to make stick, especially if a lot of your surfing time is politically related and you can make even a base showing that the policy wasn't meted out fairly as compared to others in the office.

-Gene

We've fired quite a few people for this and they've all stuck just fine. Whenever I issue a warning to an employee or their manager I keep it. A few have tried to come back and sue but they fell flat on their face when they were presented with their signed usage policy, my dated warning messages, and proof of the fact you have to click through yet another policy message every single time you log into the computer. The only content we fire for is porn or viruses or illegal software. Otherwise its waste of time/waste of company resources.

-Bryan

Pthfndr
09-14-2007, 8:20 PM
articulably

???????????????

Good thing we know what you meant. ;)

Suggestions for articulably:

1. articulable
2. articulately
3. articulacy
4. articulatory
5. articulating
6. articulacies
7. articulates
8. articulation
9. articulator
10. articulated

bwiese
09-14-2007, 9:30 PM
...then you have a difference that is articulably political.

???????? Good thing we know what you meant. ;)

Suggestions for articulably:
1. articulable
2. articulately
3. articulacy
4. articulatory
5. articulating
6. articulacies
7. articulates
8. articulation
9. articulator
10. articulated

Sorry, Rob, it shouldn't take much effort to know what I meant. There was no error.

The word articulably is indeed a perfectly valid word, an adverb derived from the adjective articulable. Customarily, this adverbial form would modify an adjective and not a noun. Other inflective variants you listed above would be grammatically incorrect or supply the wrong meaning even if they were an adverbial part of speech (for example, "articulately", #2 in your list).

Just because it doesn't pop up in spell-check - and doesn't necessarily roll off one's tongue - doesn't mean it's incorrect or nonexistent. (Kinda like my statement, "Just because XYZ isn't approved by Calif. DOJ doesn't mean its illegal.")

Google it - it comes up in a ton of documents, often in patent filings or analytical papers. (The incorrect articuably will also pop out if you Google the dropped-"L" corruption of this word.) I will just add that dictionaries don't always come up with all inflections/declensions of words, especially those of regular construction.

It's simply an adverb that modifies the adjective "political" in my sentence. No other inflection of articul... would have served properly in that position and context, and there's no reason or need to twist the sentence around to adapt it to another form.

My sentence stands.

hoffmang
09-14-2007, 10:36 PM
Those of you who doubt that an employer firing an employee over surfing a gun rights site is a crime in California need to go read (UCLA Law Professor and US Expert on the Second Amendment and Constitutional Law) Dr. Volokh's post and the linked case law. Even though this state is at will (I write our employment agreements, I know how this works) you can not fire an employee for their political speech or activity. All it takes is for the employee to be able to articulate that it he or she was targeted for being pro gun and there are contingency fee attorneys who can make an employer pay.

Consider this a warning to employers (like me) on all political issues - especially the ones you don't like.

-Gene

jimx
09-15-2007, 11:01 AM
Cali IS an "At will" employer-employee state. They can can your butt for litterally NOTHING...the only time peeps ever get introuble is when they DO actually say/list a reason of why yer' fired & potentially open themselves up to a lawsuit.

You walk in...they say..."You're done" and here's your check....... aint much recourse to be sought if they clam up.


The trick is the employer must give NO REASON for your firing. If they give a reason, then that reason must be legit.

As such when I have to fire an employee, I give no reason.

Despite being an at will state you are still liable for lawsuits.

Yep and same here; They'd walk in...I'd escort them down the hall and sit them down in front of thier check, ask for thier keys and say its been a pleasure working for you while it lasted- unfortunately your services are no longer required...please collect your personal items now and leave the building once this has been done.

((ALWAYS....ALWAYS... the blank stare)) and they ask....Why....

And the response..... Because YOUR services are no longer required.

It is/was nerve racking about the first dozen times I had to do it...but seriously got to the point of why care? *our* employer HAD given peeps multiple warnings and multiple times to correct any problem(s) and had a kick butt grievience route.....so when/if they go to me and the point in time to be firing them....as they say...They just HAD to go.....

But yes....we had some end up in arbitration and a few in front of a labor panel....NONE ever won.
You two could give a class, Terminating 101.

The only time you need to give a reason is if you are going to fight EDD.

metalhead357
09-15-2007, 11:55 AM
You two could give a class, Terminating 101.

The only time you need to give a reason is if you are going to fight EDD.


LOL! I DID have to teach the guy that was replacing me (I was leaving on my own accord & good graces;)) But I do owe all my training to my director who litterally made me sit in on several before turning me loose to do the dirty deed............. it is NOT a fun job. Makes it 1000X more difficult when the fool's a tool and is sitting across from you during arbitration lying through his teeth:cool:

tombinghamthegreat
09-15-2007, 2:57 PM
Most of the people at my work are pro gun or nuetral to the issue so I can freely talk about guns without worry.

pnkssbtz
09-15-2007, 3:07 PM
Most of the people at my work are pro gun or nuetral to the issue so I can freely talk about guns without worry.

Same here.

ibanezfoo
09-15-2007, 6:41 PM
Those of you who doubt that an employer firing an employee over surfing a gun rights site is a crime in California need to go read (UCLA Law Professor and US Expert on the Second Amendment and Constitutional Law) Dr. Volokh's post and the linked case law. Even though this state is at will (I write our employment agreements, I know how this works) you can not fire an employee for their political speech or activity. All it takes is for the employee to be able to articulate that it he or she was targeted for being pro gun and there are contingency fee attorneys who can make an employer pay.

Consider this a warning to employers (like me) on all political issues - especially the ones you don't like.

-Gene

What about political signs? I printed out that funny sign of the democrats symbol with the crying baby in the middle on a wall next to my desk and made sure our HR manager (superliberal) could see it. It lasted about 2 hours before she came over and demanded I take it down, which I did just to get her out of my office. However, over at one of her employees' desks I noticed some ridiculous image of the Governator on her postboard. That printout lasted until that employee quit. I didn't care because I initially did it just to get a rise out of her in the first place.

-Bryan

CSACANNONEER
09-15-2007, 7:00 PM
Most of the people at my work are pro gun or nuetral to the issue so I can freely talk about guns without worry.

My night job is at an indoor range. I hope that I've got nothing to worry about. As for my day job, in the past, my boss has actually asked me to furnish weapons to other employees while we are doing jobs in bear/cat country! So, I think I'm OK there.

tombinghamthegreat
09-15-2007, 11:14 PM
My night job is at an indoor range. I hope that I've got nothing to worry about. As for my day job, in the past, my boss has actually asked me to furnish weapons to other employees while we are doing jobs in bear/cat country! So, I think I'm OK there.

That sounds cool to work at an indoor range.

CSACANNONEER
09-16-2007, 9:59 AM
tombinghamthegreat,

If you want to stop by and shoot my Keltec, I'll be there this Tuesday and Friday after 5pm. Let me know if I need to bring the SU16.

jimx
09-16-2007, 11:09 AM
Yes, but if you have 10 roughly similar employees in violation of the web browsing rules - doing Matchup.com or whatever, selling jam-jar lids on EBay, orl ooking for a room or a car on Craigslist - but the one dude that gets fired is hitting Calguns.net and NRA.org, and spending about the same amount of avg time as others on non-work web activities, then you have a difference that is articulably political.

Yes plus, the example you give is a slam dunk loss for the employer, period.
Without looking at the political part – One person is being singled out. They are letting everyone else go wherever they want. Dang, they are even allowing someone to run a business on company time. You should have no problem getting a lawyer to take the case on contingency. This is a clear case of “discrimination”.

The political aspects are gravy.

But the odds are nothing will be said to you about the NRA. You will show up to work one day and be terminated.

tombinghamthegreat
09-16-2007, 4:53 PM
tombinghamthegreat,

If you want to stop by and shoot my Keltec, I'll be there this Tuesday and Friday after 5pm. Let me know if I need to bring the SU16.

I may be by friday depending on my school and work. I will let you know ahead of time.

artherd
09-17-2007, 12:18 AM
Those of you who doubt that an employer firing an employee over surfing a gun rights site is a crime in California need to go read (UCLA Law Professor and US Expert on the Second Amendment and Constitutional Law) Dr. Volokh's post and the linked case law. Even though this state is at will (I write our employment agreements, I know how this works) you can not fire an employee for their political speech or activity. All it takes is for the employee to be able to articulate that it he or she was targeted for being pro gun and there are contingency fee attorneys who can make an employer pay.

Consider this a warning to employers (like me) on all political issues - especially the ones you don't like.

-Gene

Gene knows a thing or two about having employees. I happen to know one of the best employment lawyers in the state as well. Woe be it to the employeer (myself included) who unlawfully terminates.