Boss tells pro-Trump employees to resign

originally posted by: imwilliam


Lets see who cries for mercy first.

Probaby the British. Remember when certain members of parliament tried to ban trump from The U.K.?

time.com...

a reply to: EchoesInTime

Look, I didn't support President-Elect Trump at all, and even I think this is garbage.

If I were you, and my boss put an email out with this kind of garbage in it, I'd do what *I* have actually done for 35 years:

Smile, nod, say "Yessa Surr!" and keep voting how the hell I want anyway.

The only thing I owe my boss is my fair day's labor in exchange for a fair day's wage.

Grubhub can suck it.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Yup.

No boss tells me what to do outside the workplace, none. Inside it, only to a point, which would, naturally, include anything illegal, or cheating someone.

People watching TV only seemed to hear "Trump is the devil" and nobody I've talked with so far has even read ANY of the very simple, summarized, 2-page "outline of plan for presidency first 100 days" DJT's had on his site, and it's been on NPR and other places most the campaign far as I know.

Other people read this map of his intent and said, "These things are very important. It's amazing someone not beholden to 'the system' and all the money of others is finally here and willing to address these things which nobody in a more vulnerable position could do. I'll vote for that guy because these issues matter a lot to me too."

And then it's just "you must be a racist sexist yada yada...!" None of which have ANY part of his officially stated issues. None.

The problem is that the guy 'assumes' that because someone voted for Trump they 'must' be a racist-sexist-etc.

It's like two groups with two radically different pictures of reality.

I think people voted for HRC because they wanted to kill the 2nd Amendment, eviscerate the bill of rights, endanger the country, and otherwise be the worst thing ever. They seem to think they voted for her because "it was time" for a woman.

("Fred, wake up! Fred, it's time! It's time for us to be president!" What bizarre logic was that anyway?!)

We are really just not working with the same picture at all. People angry about Trump's win so far as I find in all my friends feeling like this, have zero idea what his platform even IS. Because HRC and media never told them. They just said, he's a cretin, hate him. They never addressed any issues at all. Maybe that was on purpose because they were such important issues it might have helped instead of hurt him, who knows.

RC

I have been reading here for days now and I (being from Europe) feel most shocked about the strange fact that Trump supporters seem to just forget how he treated and spoke to and about people during the campain (especially Mexicans and women (and about women not only during the campain of course). That is my issue with Trump as a president. He was showing his true colors very openly. How are you just able to forget that or call it not an issue?

I'm truly wondering.

And I would like any boss and school teacher (especially) to tell their kids that that kind of language and behavior won't be accepted under my roof, ever.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: EchoesInTime

I agree, it's probably a small percentage that are really "deplorable" (certainly not all, and not even half). But the main point Hillary and others were making is that it was many of Trump's comments that were attracting these types.

Is that why Hillary admired Margaret Sanger? And had the blessing of Byrd? And had dealings with Alynsky? Are you forgetting about Hillary's shady connections?

originally posted by: Emarie
I have been reading here for days now and I (being from Europe) feel most shocked about the strange fact that Trump supporters seem to just forget how he treated and spoke to and about people during the campain (especially Mexicans and women (and about women not only during the campain of course). That is my issue with Trump as a president. He was showing his true colors very openly. How are you just able to forget that or call it not an issue? I'm truly wondering.

Some is just what you hear, or how often. If you mostly only hear nothing but "omg the horror" rather than "here's his policies but also, he's a jerk" I think it distorts it...

He's stereotypical in some bad ways, and sometimes a loudmouthed lunatic besides. He's said some lewd things -- I would have to imprison every man I ever met if that were actually criminal and not just irritatingly stupid at times -- and he is openly upset about the situation in the middle east and the danger and damage it's already done in parts of Europe, and things like "2 million" (million!) convicted criminals STILL IN the country (because our policies don't deport illegals *even when they are convicted of violent crimes*).

I saw him comment about Syrian immigrants after the whole thing blew up with the alleged 'vetting' in Syria sending intentional terrorists in and I saw him comment often about Mexican nationals -- that is a country not a race in that usage -- and he was only referring to the issues of illegal entry and a decent chunk of crime from that. He has his own personal opinions like everyone else does about stuff, but the things most important to him -- and he's going to be frakkin busy just with this stuff -- are allegedly in his "official 100 days plan" so that's what I have to see as his most important issues.

I tend to look at his placement of women and his pay to them as signs of his actual respect and acknowledgement of them as human beings, even if he is also a bonehead cretin in terms of macho BS. DJT has always been a liberal more than a conservative -- either way he is NOT a corporatist which both parties totally are at this point.

I find "the issues" facing my country more important than I find "the personality" of the person who is willing to deal with those issues.

HRC not only was not willing to deal with any of the issues I find most important, but she was specifically pushing things I consider abhorrent and destructive to my nation and people.

I do not believe that he will personally do harm to women or minorities based on gender or race -- I don't think he gives a damn frankly, he has far bigger issues to deal with -- nobody can speak for the republican right now controlling both house and senate, though. In that context, DJT is by far, I mean really by far, the most liberal person the reps have ever got voted in ever, in their history, and so DJT is probably the best possible thing that could have happened to the left if any republican took office. I'm pretty sure if it was a 'real' republican, the outcome would have been so much more polarized and so much worse. His primary focus for politics is "constitution" -- not religion. Thankfully.

I have asked myself, "but if he were 10x as horrible a person and ACTUALLY DID hate women and minorities as people are so freaking out about (and interpreting from comments which I often do NOT interpret to mean that), would you still be positive about him being president?" And honestly, I have to say: restoring the law of constitution, restoring the ability of people to govern by getting rid of corruptive policies, and the economic welfare of my country are the most important things to me. I'm offended that we should ever be given a choice between two people who are both lousy and terrifying as candidates. But if I have to choose, I choose the welfare of the nation over the welfare of any group within it. But hopefully that will never be a real issue. I don't think it will be. And if it ever became so it would not be DJT pushing it.

RC

a reply to: EchoesInTime
Boss retracts his outrageous email, and now faces possible legal trouble for his idiocy.
He also faces a massive boycott of his company from an estimated 70% of the electorate.

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
Wasn't it the Democrats who said that Trump would be like Hitler? From what i can see so far post election the far left seem to be the ones who are acting like Nazis.
Now Trump supporters will have to keep quiet just in case their boss is a Clinton brainwashed puppet who will fire them if they say anything positive about our new president.

And at this point even if you didn't vote for DJT but were trying to make the best of it, accept reality, and be positive, you'd still be assumed to have voted for him, and suddenly be the enemy. I didn't vote for him but I'm optimistic. Maybe it'll be for naught but with him at least it's a maybe and not a certainty.

Here's hoping this guy's behavior totally comes back to bite him. Because no matter what he says at this point, now it's clear to every employee -- and vendor and contractor -- that his "subjective morals" allow him to violate both civic ethics and business law to support his rabidly emotional political views. There will be no real freedom henceforth. No matter what is said on the surface, the fascist suppression at the social (let alone economic) level will be operating silently.

RC

There is a business I will no longer use (and I have in the past). What ever happened to tolerance and differing opinions?

www.vanityfair.com...
Maloney told Fox News that “almost 20 percent” of employees later thanked him for sending the memo. The markets, however, did not take kindly to Maloney’s noble note, and shares of the Chicago-based food-delivery company plunged 5 percent on Friday. ... Maloney’s remarks resulted in a flurry of angry tweets, with some people claiming they’d never place an order on Grubhub again. Fortunately for those quitting Grubhub in protest, there’s no lack of start-ups willing to deliver a breakfast sandwich to their doorsteps.

Maloney tells Forbes he hasn’t received any resignation letters, and later clarified his initial memo. “I want to clarify that I did not ask for anyone to resign if they voted for Trump,” he wrote. “I would never make such a demand. To the contrary, the message of the email is that we do not tolerate discriminatory activity or hateful commentary in the workplace, and that we will stand up for our employees.”

(From his original: “I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump and will work to shield our community from this movement as best as I can,” Maloney said.)

Few want to support "hateful" anything. But being anti "illegal immigration and crime" is not being anti-immigrant (also usually interpreted to be 'racist').

Also, "nationalist" (sneer) definition is "a person who advocates political independence for a country." As opposed to having Saudi Arabia and others help fund their preferred candidate for our elections. As opposed to anybody suggesting that what is economically healthy for our country, should come second to what is more politically expedient for any other country.

Patriotism is a virtue not a moral crime. What has gone so wrong with our schooling or media that so much of our population now thinks the support of the good of their own country is inherently wrong?

RC

It's sad just how many people out there think they have the right to have a say in how you vote.

People talk about tolerance, but what can be more intolerant than trying to stop someone exercising that most basic of democratic rights?

a reply to: EchoesInTime

And what happens to his business when all those employees leave and they and all their friends no longer support it ??

Is politics worth the possible lose of that much business for him.

Sometimes KARMA is a bitch.

Never use grub hub, got it!

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
This story is just unbelievable. How many companies across America will be discriminating against employees for voting Trump.

It's not because they voted Trump, but much of Trump's words, actions, and ideas would violate most workplace rules of conduct.

Good luck.

a reply to: CryHavoc

This comment is from someone who didn't support Trump.....


For decades now the golden rule of the workplace was don't make anything a condition of employment if it didn't directly tie to job duties. You can say you need someone to be able to travel out of town, you can't say women with children can't apply because of travel.

Even if the requirement doesn't specifically discriminate against a protected class, you can still get in trouble if your requirement has the effect of actually discriminating against a protected class (for example, picking an all white area and requiring that any potential employee live there).

The problem was the CEO said Trump's policies instead of pointing out specific behavior such as racial slurs.

Yes, I predict the CEO is going to get sued and it's not going to be from some white guy who wants to talk about Mexicans.

These are the people who are going to sue the CEO:

A strict Catholic who voted for Trump because they don't believe in abortion (religious beliefs)
A working mother who wanted child care subsidies (family status and work place conditions)
A gay worker who decided to voted for Trump after the Orlando shooting (protected class in some states)

originally posted by: Violater1


Just a minute CRTSJW. They have a right to file a lawsuit with the E.E.O.C under Title VII.
It would be need to be judicated. Btw, how tastes the crow?

Where exactly? Just went to the Government's website and read title 7 ALL OF IT TWICE! No mention of political ideology being mentioned.
I then proceeded to look into other amendments and found this under the Americans with disabilities act of 1990 "A 1999 jury verdict against Chuck E. Cheese pizza chain, where the Commission alleged that the defendant discriminatorily discharged an employee because of his mental retardation. Although the employee was able to work productively with the aid of a job coach, and the local manager and staff supported his retention, the employee was fired by a regional manager who stated that the company did not employ "those kind of people." Ultimately, EEOC won a jury award of $10,000 in back pay, $70,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress, and a record $13 million in punitive damages (later reduced to $230,000 because of the statutory cap on punitive damages)"
Source www.eeoc.gov...
So unless supporting/voting for Donald Trump is considered mental retardation...
Was the original email from Grubhub badly written me thinketh so but personally i don't see the threat of actually being fired for voting Trump he's just stating that the company's values don't mesh with some things Mr.Trump has apparently said. But that'll be for the courts to decide if it comes to that. And let's face it some employment contracts screw over people big time. Especially so called best of the best. Can't take any clients you found and signed up can't start a competing business for X amount of time within X distance you're working for pharmaceutical company X and found a cure for cancer awesome you're not gonna see one penny of that and so on...But then again you agreed to sign it so meh.
Also Grubhub is only down -0.88% in after hours trading and no longer -5% as (Sorry i don't remember your handle) previously stated.

a reply to: EchoesInTime
update guy is backtracking here is a link to his companies front page media.grubhub.com...

a reply to: EchoesInTime

I'm amazed at how clueless this CEO is to not think that this email would get out??? Doesn't he not have a support staff beneath him?

Wow!

originally posted by: HumanoidX
a reply to: EchoesInTime

I'm amazed at how clueless this CEO is to not think that this email would get out??? Doesn't he not have a support staff beneath him?

Wow!

Seems he wasn't paying much attention to the news for the past year or so. If he had he would have known about the State Department e-mails and how easily they were brought out.