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.

 

Losing your freedom of speech at work?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
When you're on company time, you have to sing the company tune. I don't think it's ever been any different. On your own time, that's when the First Amendment kicks in. On company time, you need to consult the policy manual.

[edit on 2006/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
When the gov't starts to pay your salary, they become your employer. They pay your salary, and your COLA and everything else. Your argument would mean that if Lockheed paid my salary I wouldn't be employed by them. How is it that if I'm a civil servant I'm NOT employed by the gov't?


If you are a civil servant you are employed by taxpayers. They pay your and government's salaries. Taxpayers are the ultimate boss, but too many people forgot that.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Grady,

That is the case in New Mexico and Arizona. I have to say its another world out there.


As for the rest of the nation, freedom of speech and expression have never been reduced to whispers as they are today.


It was ok to go around openly laughing at Bill Clinton. Oh yes. BUT its not ok to express oneself about Bush. Why is that?
And please dont say it was "different" circumstances.
IT was a different mentality then. That is, before the "conditioning" began.




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Exactly that is my point only a few months ago my husband used to come home talking about jokes and conversations about government related issues.

Plus the funny E-mails that he used to get and then send to me.

But now the ambience is different in order to talk about anything they have to gather under a tent during smoking breaks.

My husband is not even a smoker.

Funny how people is allowing this invasion of freedom of speech to be taken away from them.

Why the CID wants to monitor conversations from workers that in other to be in there working most has to undergo two and three years of background investigations that span from decades of information.

Why they are encouraging others to come forward and become snitches and to spy on their own co-workers conversations.

Where my husband work is a lot of socialization and that means conversations of all kind.


Now I will like to ask does anybody here feel afraid of talking about terrorist and against the government in public places while with friends?


Does anybody join the conversation or the topic tends to fade away with silence.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Now I will like to ask does anybody here feel afraid of talking about terrorist and against the government in public places while with friends?

Does anybody join the conversation or the topic tends to fade away with silence.





I have no problem with these discussions in a PUBLIC place. Problem is the places you are describing are not public. When your husband gets reprimanded for a discussion like this in a public place then his rights will have been violated until then they haven't been.

You might be suprised at how few public places there actually are. Stores, restraunts, bars, malls, churches, hospitals, schools, libraries and office buildings are NOT public places. The people, organizations or companies that own them may ALLOW you to talk freely, but are under no obligation to do so.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

You might be suprised at how few public places there actually are.


So in other words is not such think as Freedom of speech is just an illusion and we have never actually had that right unless is given to us or allow by somebody else.

What an ugly reality.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
So in other words is not such think as Freedom of speech is just an illusion and we have never actually had that right unless is given to us or allow by somebody else.

What an ugly reality.


We have always had the right to freedom of speech. This right doesn't give us the right to exercise it any place we choose. You may have the right to carry a sign saying "BUSH SUCKS", but you don't have the right to carry that sign on my property unless I give my consent. Look at the sandwich shop owner in Philidelphia who put the sign "English spoken here" in his store's window. That is his right to free speech, but he is being sued anyway. If you work for a company that I own and you bring your "BUSH SUCKS" sign to work with you it is within my rights for me to tell you to leave the sign in your car. As soon as you are on your own time and off of my property you are free to do as you wish, with one exception. Don't carry your sign and wear my company's uniform if we have one.
If I as your employer tell you that you can't wave your "BUSH SUCKS" sign anywhere, any time then I have intruded upon your rights.

One other item. These days before starting a new job you would be smart to read the company's policies and regulations before you sign your contract. Many companies have morals clauses in their employee handbooks and regulations that may restrict certain kinds of avtivities. These are not an infringment upon your rights, you always have the right not to accept the job.



[edit on 4-9-2006 by JIMC5499]


apc

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
An employer, any employer by any definition, has the right to restrict the activities, all the activities, of their employees during employed time, regardless of location.

An employer can dictate that their employees may not speak, sneeze, sweat, urinate, or make eye contact with their superiors without permission. That employer may not have many employees left, but if it's in the job description, then the employees must obey or face the consequences outlined.

Obviously some states have laws that require employers to give predetermined breaks, etc etc. The point is if the rules are on the books, then any employer action against an employee who violates those rules is justified. If the rules are not officially noted, then you have a legal issue.

If this employer does in fact have rules laid out in writing that state that no employees may discuss the matters described, then they are justified in enforcing said rules.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I think a lot of you are ignoring what Marg means.

Marg means that NO ONE feels ":safe" speaking of Bush outside the home. I know this first hand- even here in Massachusetts...liberal land...you dont hear a thing.
If the topic of government comes up it goes away as fast as it came and a few will roll their eyes and change the conversation.

It is very obvious.

Since when is it so uncomfortable for people to express themselves? It was never like this.


I have been shooshed by people around me...
Dont speak ill, or you may have a problem.
(eyes roll) conversation is changed.

THIS is not the way it was. I dont give a rats behind if we are at war or not. We were at war during VietNam and people used to express their feelings any old way, anywhere on the street.


And i might add that saying this here is risky.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I've NEVER had that problem here. And people here are ALWAYS bashing Bush and the current gov't. Anywhere I've been if the topic comes up, people just jump right in and will talk and talk about it and how they disagree with what he's done so far, and whatever they want.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Zaphod,

Could i ask where you are?

I am gaging what i say living in a very liberal state, so i assume it would be worse elsewhere.

The sign is gone from the corner store where i live that wants people to join to express their views of this administration also. :shk:



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I'm in South Carolina. I've overheard many conversations about the current gov't and their policies that were totally against Bush and company.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If you work on a military base, you fall under military rules. As a civilian or not. The military is allowed to monitor any conversation they want to, because they deal with classified information.

The Military can only monitor conversations on their bases, otherwise they are acting in violation of Posse Commitatus and acting as a law enforcement agency, something they should be removed from the military and placed in prison for by the courts, starting with the highest 'rank'ing toad.



All Hail Georgius Bushius Caesar! Conquerer of theFree World!

Oh don't forget his wife, Incontinentia!



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
And if you read the initial post that's exactly where this is happening. ON A MILITARY BASE.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
The Military can only monitor conversations on their bases, otherwise they are acting in violation of Posse Commitatus and acting as a law enforcement agency, something they should be removed from the military and placed in prison for by the courts, starting with the highest 'rank'ing toad.


Problem is that when you obtain a security clearence you voluntarily give up some of your rights. You give your permission for them to monitor you. They are not taking away these rights you are surrendering them voluntarily. If you don't like it you can always surrender your clearence.

I haven't seen any problem with anyone being penalized around here for criticizing the government. There is plenty of people who are spouting off as they please. All you have to do is to look into the "Letters to the Editor" section of the local newspaper.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Thanks dg for bringing the point I am trying to make.

Zaphold58
I understand your examples and your views and they make sense . . . but only in a private sector.

Only military active duty are reprimanded by their commanding officers when their act in a manner that is unbecoming to a soldier .

Civilian personnel only gets reprimanded by a higher civilian position but only when is related to work performance .

Two difference things, we are talking about a military base where civilian workers work among military personnel.

One thing is to respect your private company’s policies but when it comes to working in a military installation the government has not reason why to get involve when you are having conversations with another co-coworker about politics.

Politics are a subject that is open in a democratic government. If you work in base topics like war, troops and what is going around the world are part of everyday life.

Every day they received reports by the DOD about what is going on with different things concerning the military, like the death toll, names of soldier than die during Iraq war, the setback of the war in Iraq and other topics that make for the social conversation during coffee brakes.

Now you tell me that people are given this information and they can not talk about their disappointments or views of what is going on with the government and the political parties and what is going on with the war?.

When is all about the government what they are working with and in?

Now you understand.

These are no jobs that you get fired just like that, this jobs base on contracts and reputation and performance.

It says nothing in the job description that you can not talk about politics or political issues or what goes on in the world.

Knowing that some monitoring of conversations are conducted are still a violation of peoples rights and free speech.

Since when we can not talk about politics with others or discuss issues related to political issues?

Now you understand? Littler by littler without the use of laws or regulations we the people are been intimidated by what goes on around us and affect us and our rights.

Yes people can not be reprimanded for talking about politics and political parties or the government, but when the invitation to posible spying on co-workers is encouraged I see it as intimidation.

Is enough of monitoring already when it comes to sensible data that is property of the government and that is something expected.

But monitoring your political views or the way you see the government policies that is different.

I agree Dg I live in a very strong Republican state and I can testify that talking about Bush policies is hush, hush unless is to praise his government.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Zaphod,

Could i ask where you are?

I am gaging what i say living in a very liberal state, so i assume it would be worse elsewhere.



NH is pretty close to Mass, and the political discussions are hot and heavy there. Bashing Bush is always in style.

Upstate NY, near the Canadian border, still believes in voicing their views on the government pretty clearly. I am in a rural area run by the democrats.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Mahree

Funny that when I go to visit my brother in Jacksonville Florida his wife has not problem taking about politics anywhere, people seems to talk politics everywhere in that city.

And is a Republican state.

But here in my neck of the woods you do not hear anything at all around you.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Mahree

Funny that when I go to visit my brother in Jacksonville Florida his wife has not problem taking about politics anywhere, people seems to talk politics everywhere in that city.

And is a Republican state.

But here in my neck of the woods you do not hear anything at all around you.


What do you suppose the difference is Marg? There seems to be a problem in MA. and your state.

I do live in a democratic town, but as you probably know, myself and my extended family are republican. Actually we all work together pretty well for the good of the town. Only really big difference is spending money. lol We have to keep them on their toes.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Well, if everyone is free to talk, outside away from home, then i seem to be in the wrong places at the wrong times.

It started in Arizona, followed me all the way to Cape Cod and to this day, although i dont bring the subject up, i have noticed that people would rather not touch the subject with a ten foot pole.

It sucks to be them. Nothing like living in denial. This is how far i get :"I'm too busy raising children to worry about anything" OR " If it doesnt affect me and my family, i dont care"

Just get those chicken wings and the beer and we're all fine.





top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join