Business Conduct And Ethics Policy
- Thread starter Dog Wonder
- Start date
EXCUSE ME SIR,I BELIEVE YOU ARE WRONG... what of the policy of harassing an employee off premises?700UW said:
posting from home falls under the same rules as in the "posted rules of conduct"and if that doesn't work i'm sure under the corporate policy manual ,they could find a shoe to fit."
as a matter of fact if i am correct,when you were indoctrinated,no matter what labor group....you signed an agreement to uphold and abide by the rules and corporate policies as stated.
I'm a staunch USAir supporter and loyal customer since the Piedmont days, but I never registered before because this doesn't feel like the place for me to talk. I do learn a lot here.
Although I'm not your lawyer, I can tell you that those who explained that there is no First Amendment protection against actions of a private entity (USAir in this case) are correct. In general, companies can fire you for any reason they like so long as it doesn't discriminate against a protected class. People get fired for conduct outside the workplace all the time. I'm too lazy to research detailed cites, but I remember Delfino v. Varian in California centered around a guy fired for posting stuff on a web site. I mostly know the case because it turned into a long battle over his continued postings. A more amusing example is Thomasson v. Bank of America who was fired for his off-hours hobby of being a gay stripper.
The only avenue that jumps out at me to attack the case would revolve around the union. The NLRA protects "concerted activity" which would seem to include internet discussions. An interesting case would be Timekeeping Systems Inc. v. Leinweber, 323 NLRB No. 30 which says that they couldn't fire the guy for making comments about the CEO's honesty and criticizing policy on the company e-mail. This is way outside my area of expertise, but it seems to me that if they couldn't fire someone for it on their own e-mail, they'd be in a world of hurt on a public discussion board.
<back to lurking>
Although I'm not your lawyer, I can tell you that those who explained that there is no First Amendment protection against actions of a private entity (USAir in this case) are correct. In general, companies can fire you for any reason they like so long as it doesn't discriminate against a protected class. People get fired for conduct outside the workplace all the time. I'm too lazy to research detailed cites, but I remember Delfino v. Varian in California centered around a guy fired for posting stuff on a web site. I mostly know the case because it turned into a long battle over his continued postings. A more amusing example is Thomasson v. Bank of America who was fired for his off-hours hobby of being a gay stripper.
The only avenue that jumps out at me to attack the case would revolve around the union. The NLRA protects "concerted activity" which would seem to include internet discussions. An interesting case would be Timekeeping Systems Inc. v. Leinweber, 323 NLRB No. 30 which says that they couldn't fire the guy for making comments about the CEO's honesty and criticizing policy on the company e-mail. This is way outside my area of expertise, but it seems to me that if they couldn't fire someone for it on their own e-mail, they'd be in a world of hurt on a public discussion board.
<back to lurking>
Twicebaked
Veteran
- May 22, 2003
- 1,788
- 18
NO, Freedom of Speech does not protest you from ONLY the government.nycbusdriver said:
It is in everyday life in the U.S. It protects you with anything (with the acception of slander).
If things are of a confidential nature, yes US Airways has a point. If not, they don't.
Since when is freedom of speech dealing only with the government.
Some better go back to 11th grade U.S. History class.
I think some people really need to read the First Amendment, which states in relevant part:Twicebaked said:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
Note the first part-- CONGRESS shall make no law-- in other words, GOVERNMENT (now interpreted as both state and federal government, not just the US Congress per se) cannot pass a law restricting speech, as others here have pointed out.
It does NOT say "USAirways shall make no policy..." The First Amendment does not prohibit a private company from making stupid rules and enforcing them. Some other laws might depending on the exact issue and circumstances, but as has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, this is not a Freedom of Speech issue because it is not the government that is attempting to restrict your speech.
pitguy
Veteran
- Aug 21, 2002
- 1,509
- 0
An employee may post on here, but cannot let it be known they are an employee in their text content. So if said employee wanted to post he/she could easily post just be using caution in how the word it.
Example being. Someone I know says Dave the New Lorenzo is an idiot because they saw him on a flight and he was picking his nose. Instead of saying I am a Flight Attendant and I saw that idiot Dave picking his nose.
So with that said. Nowhere does it say that an employee cannot post. Just that it should not be identifiable that the poster is an employee.
Example being. Someone I know says Dave the New Lorenzo is an idiot because they saw him on a flight and he was picking his nose. Instead of saying I am a Flight Attendant and I saw that idiot Dave picking his nose.
So with that said. Nowhere does it say that an employee cannot post. Just that it should not be identifiable that the poster is an employee.
burghlaw1
Member
- May 13, 2003
- 76
- 0
PitBull,PITbull said:
I don't mean to disagree with you but the First Amendment applies when the government tries to infringe on free speech. It does not really apply to private corporations setting corporate policy.
That doesn't mean that there might not be some form of anti-union or intimidation claim that you could bring as a union member for exercising your right to speak. Such rights are not based upon the constitution but on labor statutes that Congress (or perhaps individual states) has enacted.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
So, basically, if I am understanding you correctly, Corporations can make policies that discriminate too. In other words, they can make policies that state "we hire no minorities", or a policy that states "we hire no one with disabilities". Or, they can make a policy that states" anyone that is gay will be fired"....or a policy that states "if an employee speaks ill of the managment, they will be terminated"? I do realize that you can be fired for any reason, union or non-union, but companies do get sued for blatant discrimination, in one form or another, directly or implied.
There are laws in place to protect minorities and those folks with disabilities, and age. I believe these laws in place are not just for the government not to discirminate, but citizens as well. If you discriminate against renters, or you decide not to serve someone in a restaurant based on the color of their skin, or heritage, you can be sued. There was a case some years ago regarding Denny's Restaurant Chain. The individuals who brought suit, won.
If I were stupid enough to put an add in the paper for a rental piece of property that stated "We accept no children and no Arabs", that would be OK? If I blatantly discriminate against 1 group or groups, do I not set myself up to be sued?
There are laws in place to protect minorities and those folks with disabilities, and age. I believe these laws in place are not just for the government not to discirminate, but citizens as well. If you discriminate against renters, or you decide not to serve someone in a restaurant based on the color of their skin, or heritage, you can be sued. There was a case some years ago regarding Denny's Restaurant Chain. The individuals who brought suit, won.
If I were stupid enough to put an add in the paper for a rental piece of property that stated "We accept no children and no Arabs", that would be OK? If I blatantly discriminate against 1 group or groups, do I not set myself up to be sued?
PITbull, you are only hearing what you want to hear, you are mixing up some very different issues, and you are failing to make some distinctions that some of us are trying to point out.
Your post initially referred to *First Amendment violations of freedom of speech*. U's policy does NOT violate that, as that applies to government, not private citizens or employers.
Now you are mixing in discrimination laws. As I and others are trying to point out, there are OTHER laws that address these issues. They are not First Amendment freedom of speech issues. Further, racial (or other) discrimination has nothing to do with the U policy being discussed here, so I am not even sure why you are bringing them up in this context.
There certainly are civil rights laws against discrimination based on race, sex, and disability, as in the examples you gave, and which specifically by statute apply to private corporations or individuals (employers, landlords) as well. And, in fact, in most states it is NOT illegal to discriminate against someone for being gay. Certainly there is no federal statute against discriminating against someone for sexual orientation. Unless there is a state law prohibiting it, and in many states there is not, it is perfectly legal for an employer to refuse to hire someone or for a landlord to refuse to rent to someone or a restaurant to refuse to serve someone because they are gay. A few years ago somewhere in the South, Cracker Barrel very openly fired a woman because she was a lesbian, and they broke no law. And, some landlords or real estate developers are trying to exclude people with children from renting/purchasing property, which is a hot legal issue currently being battled out in the courts.
Sure, you can try to sue anyone for anything. But if there is no claim upon which relief can be granted (i.e., no law has been broken), it won't get very far.
Your post initially referred to *First Amendment violations of freedom of speech*. U's policy does NOT violate that, as that applies to government, not private citizens or employers.
Now you are mixing in discrimination laws. As I and others are trying to point out, there are OTHER laws that address these issues. They are not First Amendment freedom of speech issues. Further, racial (or other) discrimination has nothing to do with the U policy being discussed here, so I am not even sure why you are bringing them up in this context.
There certainly are civil rights laws against discrimination based on race, sex, and disability, as in the examples you gave, and which specifically by statute apply to private corporations or individuals (employers, landlords) as well. And, in fact, in most states it is NOT illegal to discriminate against someone for being gay. Certainly there is no federal statute against discriminating against someone for sexual orientation. Unless there is a state law prohibiting it, and in many states there is not, it is perfectly legal for an employer to refuse to hire someone or for a landlord to refuse to rent to someone or a restaurant to refuse to serve someone because they are gay. A few years ago somewhere in the South, Cracker Barrel very openly fired a woman because she was a lesbian, and they broke no law. And, some landlords or real estate developers are trying to exclude people with children from renting/purchasing property, which is a hot legal issue currently being battled out in the courts.
Sure, you can try to sue anyone for anything. But if there is no claim upon which relief can be granted (i.e., no law has been broken), it won't get very far.
