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.

 

Pat Buchanan May Be Done At MSNBC: Phil Griffin

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I guess in Pat Buchanans political donations he calls himself.
Self/Columnist/Writer. And that was 2006.
Self Employed/Political Commentator.And that was 2008.
www.eschatonblog.com...

According to his finacial records he listed CNN as a contract in 1999.
He has PJB Enterprise,Inc listed as a company.Is that his?
pfds.opensecrets.org...
Same stuff for 1998.
pfds.opensecrets.org...

Cnn paid him pretty good.

edit on 8-1-2012 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by JBA2848

That is true enough. But then again, I have learned never to sign a contract that is harmful to me. Harmful as in controlling my actions when I am not engaged in the contracted duties. That's too close to indentured servitude for my tastes.

Was/is Pat an employee or a contractor?

TheRedneck


A Contractor, TV and Radio work in a similar way when it comes to commentors. You sign a contract that has an NDA clause it in it if you are fired barring you from discussing it. If Pat was freelance (aka they just called when they wanted him) then I don't see the trouble, they just didn't call anymore.

This has happened to many people in the News media as almost all outlets are wary of controversy. They don't want lighting rod commenters they have to constantly defend. Even Fox would have sacked him for it. In all fairness, this doesn't just happen to those on the right. Cenk of The Young TUrks (news show on youtube) had a show on MSNBC for awhile and was sacked. According to Cenk, he was told by the . of MSNBC that his show ruffled DNC feathers and they wanted him out so he got sacked.

I don't think an employer should have to keep you if they don't want to, The right passes "Right to work" laws to ensure it and rails against unions because they protect employees from being fired-Gotta take your own medicine here.
edit on 8-1-2012 by antonia because: opps



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee

People are evolving. They are growing up. Jesus will hold - - but bigotry thinking will not.

One cannot force evolution.

The problem I see is that certain powers, in this case MSNBC, are grabbing power, very explicit and wide-ranging power, over those who they employ. I understand you do not approve of Buchanan's message; that is irrelevant to the discussion. He was fired for legal yet politically controversial actions outside his duties.

You either support corporations exercising such control over the private lives of their employees, or you do not. To try and support both is to support the former.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848

If he is free-lancing as that information makes me believe, then there was no need to remove him 'officially' from MSNBC. They simply don't call him back. It strikes me as strange, however, that MSNBC had him on until six months ago, and so far as I can see, his message has not changed. This makes me wonder what has.

But of course, I digress from the broader issue into the narrower one. I gave up worrying about Pat Buchanan many years ago. There's just too much controversy in his words to make such a profitable or desirable activity.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia

I don't think an employer should have to keep you if they don't want to, The right passes "Right to work" laws to ensure it and rails against unions because they protect employees from being fired-Gotta take your own medicine here.

Even right-to-work laws (which I do support) do not grant employers carte blanche. Loss of employment for reasons such as discrimination is strictly illegal and readily accepted by the court system. Offenders are not only eligible for actual damages (such as lost wages) but also subject to fines.

There are limits, and I believe we need a limit on what influence an employer can exert over an employees private lives.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Will need to re-examine.

An Atheists reaction to a God believer? Perhaps.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by antonia

I don't think an employer should have to keep you if they don't want to, The right passes "Right to work" laws to ensure it and rails against unions because they protect employees from being fired-Gotta take your own medicine here.

Even right-to-work laws (which I do support) do not grant employers carte blanche. Loss of employment for reasons such as discrimination is strictly illegal and readily accepted by the court system. Offenders are not only eligible for actual damages (such as lost wages) but also subject to fines.

There are limits, and I believe we need a limit on what influence an employer can exert over an employees private lives.

TheRedneck


And how has MSNBC done anything illegal?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia

MSNBC has done nothing illegal, and I believe that is the whole problem. This is another precedent I see to employers exercising unnecessary and dangerous control over employees private lives. It smacks of slavery to exercise control over a person's private life while not paying for the time in that person's private life.

Yes, I used the word 'slavery'. My original intent was to avoid it. Oh, well...

If I work a part-time job, does that mean I can't work a second part-time job (I do; I have three part-time jobs now)? If I work at a job, does that mean I can't accept pay to do something else in my off time (I do; I do computer repair/programming on the side as well as make some lawn furniture for sale)? If you are defending MSNBC, then you are answering those questions "no" and stating that I owe something to an employer in the time I am not being paid for. That implies ownership of my time without compensation, and that, my friend, is the root of slavery.

There is a difference between 'legal' and 'right', and between 'illegal' and 'wrong'.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
His employer has the right to say when his personal life comes in contact with his public one. He is an ON AIR PERSONALITY. He is not a nameless factory worker toiling anonymously in the bowels of some death trap. He presents himself on air as a representative of MSNBC. Of course they have a right to say his opinions in his book interfere with his job.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder

OK, that is a valid opinion. Let me be sure I understand it thoroughly. You are saying that control of one's activities in their private lives is fine as long as the person involved is an "on-air personality" and not fine when they are a factory worker, correct?

Can I get some clarification on what occupations you believe should be able to control private lives of employees? Police? Firefighters? Doctors? Engineers? Draftsmen? Truck drivers? Salesmen? Programmers? Machinists? Carpenters? Nurses? Mine workers? Teachers? Webmasters?

I'd just like to know to make sure I don't go into a profession which causes me to lose my freedom of choice in my everyday life. That is important to me. I think I'm gonna need to set up a spreadsheet though...

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by antonia

MSNBC has done nothing illegal, and I believe that is the whole problem. This is another precedent I see to employers exercising unnecessary and dangerous control over employees private lives. It smacks of slavery to exercise control over a person's private life while not paying for the time in that person's private life.

Yes, I used the word 'slavery'. My original intent was to avoid it. Oh, well...


Writing a book is not part of your private life. It is a public act, you release it to the public and the public buys it. What you write becomes part of your public persona and if you are selling persona (as Pat is) then you better be aware of that.



If I work a part-time job, does that mean I can't work a second part-time job (I do; I have three part-time jobs now)?


Don't know, ask your employer.


If I work at a job, does that mean I can't accept pay to do something else in my off time (I do; I do computer repair/programming on the side as well as make some lawn furniture for sale)?


Don't know, ask your employer.


If you are defending MSNBC, then you are answering those questions "no" and stating that I owe something to an employer in the time I am not being paid for.


And you've lost me, you are comparing apples and oranges. Pat B. signed a contract, he didn't have to sign it. MSNBC did nothing wrong. If he doesn't like that public statements and actions can lead to him losing his job he should have never taken it. (but Pat knows this and it's why you haven't heard anything, that and a NDA clause) Everyone who has worked in broadcasting at any level knows this fact. Heck, we had a local DJ who was sacked years ago for calling someone the N bomb in a bar. Why? Because the local radio group did not want to have to field numerous calls from angry residents. If he wanted to keep his job maybe he shouldn't have said that. When you are in broadcasting your life is public, is part of the job. Don't take that job if you can't handle it.

I'm going to be really frank here though-I think you are just being obtuse.


edit on 9-1-2012 by antonia because: opps

edit on 9-1-2012 by antonia because: add something



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia

Writing a book is not part of your private life.

Incorrect. If someone writes a book under their name (as opposed to writing it under a contract with an employer of course), it is a private enterprise. They have not been paid to write it; they are doing so in hopes that it will sell. It is, in essence, a manufacturing side business dealing with ideas and written words rather than iron and steel.

The distinctions I am making are between time sold to an employer and time not sold to that employer, not a distinction between publicly-observable behavior and privately-observable behavior.


Don't know, ask your employer.

Why?

If you rent a car, does the rental company have to call you to get your approval before they rent it to another customer? Of course not! Your rental period is over until you want to rent it again. I feel the same with an employers use of my time: once I clock out, my time is no longer under company scrutiny until I clock in again.


And you've lost me, you are comparing apples and oranges. Pat B. signed a contract, he didn't have to sign it.

I don't think so.

We have seen a prolification of similar employment requirements lately. Things like non-competition clauses, requirements as to personal habits, requirements that commercial activities with others cannot be performed outside working hours. As these things get more common, the ability of people to improve their lives becomes more difficult, even impossible. It is a creeping phenomenon that I simply chose this story to illustrate.

I have a good friend who has worked in a shipping department for 20+ years. He also is one of the most wanted contractors in the area; he does this after work and on weekends. I see nothing wrong with this, as it is the method many people use to improve their lives. Now, as he is considering retirement age, he is able to have more than one thing to fall back on. If his employer had told him "You can't work for anyone else while you work with us", that would not have been possible.

I personally hold three part-time jobs right now and do side work. One has already mentioned the side work, and my response was that what I do with time you do not own is none of your business. Period. None of those jobs, nor the side work, would be sufficient for me to live on. I need them all, and this attitude would prevent me from earning a living.


I'm going to be really frank here though-I think you are just being obtuse.

I disagree, obviously. because I think you are just not seeing the ramifications of what I am saying.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Again, broadcasters sell a PERSONA, they are not selling a butt in a chair. I can get anyone in a chair reading a TelePrompter. You cannot equate it to other jobs as what you are selling at your average part time job is not your persona. If you are selling your persona and you do anything that negatively affects that persona then you risk losing that job. Doctors, Lawyers, Truck Drivers etc do not sell their personality or opinions. It's apples and oranges once again. Does an employer not have the right to choose what kind of persona they want on their cable station? Must they take all comers?

And plenty of employers will fire you for working for other people. I've seen it happen to people.
edit on 9-1-2012 by antonia because: forgot something



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





This is a gray area for me. Imagine you were running a company and one of your employees was saying way over the top things in public would you fire them?



At the end of the day, I would have fired him also way way to fringe for my taste.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Subjective Truth

Short answer: No, I would not. It's their time.

And yes, I have run several companies in the past... successful companies.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   


Since when does his job description include what those opinions are? Since when does anyone's job description include having the opinions that are conducive to the desires of their employers?
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

My good and dear friend, I'm sure that was a rhetorical question. MSNBC has a very narrow, small viewship, consisting primarily of left-leaning viewers. They have never been able to attract those to the right of center, but people like Buchanan are anathema to MSNBC's insignificant viewership. Therefore, why continue the pretense of fairness, (I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time keying, because I'm laughing so hard at using the word "fairness" in conjunction with MSNBC), and risk losing the few viewers that they have, including all the TV's that are on MSNBC in the White House 24 hours a day, and the text messages that are sent to Mika every morning directly from the White House, if anyone says anything that they consider detrimental to Obama.

Starred and Flagged because, well, you're just a great guy!
Peace, my friend.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Yes, my friend, it was rhetorical... or should have been so at least. I am familiar enough with MSNBC to know how liberal and out-of-touch with mainstream America they are.

But I still believe this shows a disturbing issue. What rights do employers have over their employees?

I recently had a part-time job where a quota was imposed. The ability to achieve that quota was not so much dependent on the ability to perform the job, but more in the locations that were assigned to individuals. I was regularly assigned to locations that made achieving quota literally impossible. The solution was that I would be asked after completion if I wanted to report fewer hours than I actually worked to make my numbers look better.

My choice? In lieu of the scarcity of jobs, it was to accept the recommendation and work 8 hours to be paid for 6... I needed the job. My ability to pass the background checks necessary allowed me to drive the company van, which paid a little more per hour and allowed me to scrape by despite the shaving of hours.

Of course, when I was pulled off a job in the middle of the day, with no warning, stranded 40 miles from home and dependent on the company van, simply for being too close to overtime... well, let's just say things went downhill from there. It eventually led to my separation form that company.

Is that legal? NO! There is now a class-action lawsuit against them. But it worked, and it shows just how employers can manipulate employees. In my case, I had been keeping my eye open for a back door should this happen, and found one thankfully, but most of the employees were not doing so. I know some of them who I ran into later were thrown into a terrible financial situation when something similar happened to them.

Now, Pat Buchanan is not going to go hungry over this. The man makes tons of cash from several different avenues, but he is the exception to the rule. The majority of us assume that we are going to be treated properly by our employer. So when the employer decides they will no longer allow employees to smoke tobacco on their off time, we accept it. When the employer wants us to work extra time for free, we accept it. When the employer tells us what we are supposed to think, we accept it. Just as the majority of posters in this thread accept the actions by MSNBC.

I will not accept it.

I will state my beliefs that this goes too far.

Even if I am in the minority... until it happens to enough others anyway.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join