It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Boss tells pro-Trump employees to resign

page: 3
41
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: reldra

So if I have not harassed my co-workers, and I am good at my job on time every day... and he finds out I voted trump and fires, and or punishes me to try and make me quit is that not a hostile work environment?


He can fire you, if your state is an at-will employment state.

Doing odd things to try to make you quit would only trigger eligibility for unemployment benefits, which is usually reserved for firing without negligence.

You could have a legal case if the things he does are severe.
edit on 10-11-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude
he's not saying that to the trump supporters, he's just saying if you can't park the hateful rhetoric at the door, please don't come through the doorway!!



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
Haul his pathetic ass in front of a judge and take him for everything he owns.

This is totally unacceptable, regardless of what way round it is.


he can fire anyone he wants, for any reason...doesn't matter what you find unacceptable...it's called "right to work" law most states already have it, it's been the law for years in California. courtesy of big business and conservatives pushing for it...why don't you tell them to form a union?.....hahahahaha....good luck with that.

can't wait for trump supporters to start getting screwed, you better hope you have enough money or assets.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Prove it? To whom? People who will bash every source I drop, or merely deliberately gloss over the truth because it is not what they like to hear? Done that all day. The truth does not matter anymore burdman30ott6. Trump made damn sure of that, with help from Hillary.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EchoesInTime

Your constitution?

Your president fully intends to wipe his arse with that document, which will likely as not be the closest he ever comes to reading the thing. No one who supports Trump can legitimately claim the document as their shield, when most of his most widely touted policies involved total violation of its contents.

Hypocrisy at its most gigantic... It would be laughable if it were not actually happening.


I know you are a bit better than this. Trump was elected on Tuesday night. I really don't think we have had a very good look at how well his presidency, which has these cool things called "checks and balances" attached to it, might look like.

Perhaps we could give him until his second day or so to lambaste him?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

So you cannot prove it and will be dropping it? Gotcha.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
So, this is where all the whiny SJW college graduates go to work.

Say. When you order from them do you have to use a card or can you pay in cash on delivery? Hmm. I'm going to find out.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Hey look... Pretty much the only time you'll find Trump's minion in support of a discrimination case....



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EchoesInTime

Your constitution?

Your president fully intends to wipe his arse with that document, which will likely as not be the closest he ever comes to reading the thing. No one who supports Trump can legitimately claim the document as their shield, when most of his most widely touted policies involved total violation of its contents.

Hypocrisy at its most gigantic... It would be laughable if it were not actually happening.


I know you are a bit better than this. Trump was elected on Tuesday night. I really don't think we have had a very good look at how well his presidency, which has these cool things called "checks and balances" attached to it, might look like.

Perhaps we could give him until his second day or so to lambaste him?


His website shows his misguided and vague plans. He had months to say what he is going to do and kept hanging his mind.
Instead, he just caused a great division and heightened racial tensions. He had his chance to show rational plans.

The plans are not rational, but his supporters did not care. They cared more about his right to say he could grab women by the you know where.
edit on 10-11-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Prove it? To whom? People who will bash every source I drop, or merely deliberately gloss over the truth because it is not what they like to hear? Done that all day. The truth does not matter anymore burdman30ott6. Trump made damn sure of that, with help from Hillary.



Psychic?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
You can discuss this with the boss at the beerhall meeting later tonight.




posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I thought that businesses should be able to hire, fire, and do business with whoever they please, right? Or is that only a thing when it comes to wedding cakes?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EchoesInTime

Your constitution?

Your president fully intends to wipe his arse with that document, which will likely as not be the closest he ever comes to reading the thing. No one who supports Trump can legitimately claim the document as their shield, when most of his most widely touted policies involved total violation of its contents.

Hypocrisy at its most gigantic... It would be laughable if it were not actually happening.


I know you are a bit better than this. Trump was elected on Tuesday night. I really don't think we have had a very good look at how well his presidency, which has these cool things called "checks and balances" attached to it, might look like.

Perhaps we could give him until his second day or so to lambaste him?


His website shows his misguided and vague plans. He had months to say what he is going to do and kept hanging his mind.
Instead, he just caused a great division and heightened racial tensions. He had his chance to show rational plans.

The plans are not rational, but his supporters did not care. They cared more about his right to say he could grab women by the you know where.



We've had 8 years of Obama. I think we can all give the man a little time to nail down some specifics.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
a reply to: reldra

It may not be illegal in most states to be fired for who you voted for, but it should be.
If i was fired for this reason i would damn sure sue them for it.


You could try. But again, it is for any reason or no reason unless you are in a protected class. I would be angry too. The odds would be against you, though.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra only if the 55 million Hillary supports step up to the plate.

Wonder if Trump supports will stop ordering from there?

Pass the word -



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EchoesInTime

Your constitution?

Your president fully intends to wipe his arse with that document, which will likely as not be the closest he ever comes to reading the thing. No one who supports Trump can legitimately claim the document as their shield, when most of his most widely touted policies involved total violation of its contents.

Hypocrisy at its most gigantic... It would be laughable if it were not actually happening.


I know you are a bit better than this. Trump was elected on Tuesday night. I really don't think we have had a very good look at how well his presidency, which has these cool things called "checks and balances" attached to it, might look like.

Perhaps we could give him until his second day or so to lambaste him?


His website shows his misguided and vague plans. He had months to say what he is going to do and kept hanging his mind.
Instead, he just caused a great division and heightened racial tensions. He had his chance to show rational plans.

The plans are not rational, but his supporters did not care. They cared more about his right to say he could grab women by the you know where.



We've had 8 years of Obama. I think we can all give the man a little time to nail down some specifics.


Trump has had his entire campaign to nail down specifics. Traditionally, people do that beforehand.

But trump supporters wanted to pick 'unknown box number 2'.

If it should be that easy, I would have ran. I would have been socially liberal, financially conservative, and pro 1st and 2nd ammendment. I would have written it all down, specifically. It is not supposed to be run, tweet a lot, change your mind a lot, rile up the alt right and win.
edit on 10-11-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

The only real difference here is that in some cases, employers knew they were going to have to fire employees due to the demands of Obamacare, and they faced a touch choice. For some of them, they decided to let go those employees who voted basically for the policy by supporting it at the ballot box. It was fairer than letting go those who did what they could to vote against it.

This guy is just firing people for being Trump supporters, period.


(post by spiritualzombie removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EchoesInTime

Your constitution?

Your president fully intends to wipe his arse with that document, which will likely as not be the closest he ever comes to reading the thing. No one who supports Trump can legitimately claim the document as their shield, when most of his most widely touted policies involved total violation of its contents.

Hypocrisy at its most gigantic... It would be laughable if it were not actually happening.


I know you are a bit better than this. Trump was elected on Tuesday night. I really don't think we have had a very good look at how well his presidency, which has these cool things called "checks and balances" attached to it, might look like.

Perhaps we could give him until his second day or so to lambaste him?


His website shows his misguided and vague plans. He had months to say what he is going to do and kept hanging his mind.
Instead, he just caused a great division and heightened racial tensions. He had his chance to show rational plans.

The plans are not rational, but his supporters did not care. They cared more about his right to say he could grab women by the you know where.


link to breakdown of Trumps plans

I read them, I understand them, and I think they are a good start. Perhaps you could start a thread and explain in detail what you don't like about them.

I'd ask what Hillary's plans were, but, well, they don't matter anymore and I don't give a rats ass.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 55, p. 341, 1994
Indiana University, Bloomington School of Public & Environmental Affairs Research Paper No. 2011-05-01

Abstract:
A private-sector employer in the United States may fire an employee for the employee's political views. During the 1992 presidential campaign, employers required that employees sit through a presidential candidate's stump speech as part of a company-wide captive audience. Employees commented to reporters that they did not feel free to leave. Employees are increasingly experiencing pressure to support the political candidate or cause that the employer believes best serves the corporate interest. This Article examines this trend and suggests a framework for a private legal remedy when the employer crosses the boundary from influence to coercion by dismissing an employee in retaliation for that employee's exercise of the right to free speech. First, the Article addresses how the problem has evolved and the traditional reluctance of courts to protect employees' political activities from employer retaliation. Second, the Article discusses policy reasons why state courts should use the First Amendment in wrongful discharge actions to protect employee political speech and discusses the results of a survey on employer influence upon employee political activities. Third, it addresses the constitutional issue implicit in courts' condoning employer conduct that infringes upon employee free speech rights. Specifically, in the common law tort of wrongful discharge, state courts have created a classification based on the content of a private-sector employee's speech. State courts do recognize a cause of action when an employee speaks out on violations of law or when the employee claims benefits to which she is legally entitled but do not recognize a cause of action when an employee engages in political speech outside the workplace. This classification disadvantages political speech, the category of speech courts traditionally give the highest protection in First Amendment jurisprudence. State courts engage in state action within the reach of the Constitution by creating this classification. Courts may avoid the constitutional problem by using the First Amendment as the basis for a wrongful discharge claim. Finally, this Article examines the limits of this new remedy, which can be drawn from analogous public-sector cases. Courts should move to recognize the tort of wrongful discharge in instances when an employer retaliates against an employee for nondisruptive political speech.



This is a Very Intricate Subject , it seems Individual Claims by Employees concerning their First Amendment Rights being Violated by an Employer in the Private Sector is somewhat Vague to say the Least......


papers.ssrn.com...

edit on 10-11-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join