I am fond of telling people who are asking or reading about my views on the rights of employers, employees, etc., that I think that an employer should be allowed to fire an employee if he has taken a dislike to the colour of her eyes. But I think that, courtesy of the ever alert Dave Barry, I may now have found a more vivid way of making the same point:
In her civil case, which is slated to begin in Los Angeles tomorrow, former employee Mary Nelson charges the eccentric Charney, 39, once had a meeting with her wearing only a fragment of clothing called a “c- – k sock,” invited her to masturbate with him, and then fired her when he learned she planned to meet with a lawyer.
Nelson’s lawyer, Keith Fink, said his first witness would be Charney, who’s turned his company into a multimillion-dollar retail giant with 7,000 employees.
Asked in a deposition whether he’d ever referred to women as “sluts” at work, he said, “In private conversations, where such language was generally welcome.”
Asked whether he considered the word “derogatory,” he said, “There are some of us that love sluts … It could be also be an endearing term.”
Asked whether he’d ever used the c-word for female genitalia at work, he said, “Absolutely.”
He also acknowledged traipsing around his company wearing only his American Apparel-made underwear.
“There is no evidence to say that you can’t walk around in your underwear all day anywhere in the United States of America,” he testified.
“Not only does he admit to virtually all of the outlandish allegations in this case, [but] he’s somewhat proud of how he comports himself in the workplace,” Fink said. “That’s what I find so shocking.”
Yes, how appalling. A man, who clearly likes very much being a man, struts about in his own property, behaving like some ancient God of Fertility. Worse, what with his enterprise being a “multi-million dollar retail giant”, I’m guessing that a great many of his employees actually enjoy all this horsing about, and work harder and more alertly than they would if employed by somebody like lawyer Fink. Working for Charney probably wouldn’t suit me, although you never know, maybe I would enjoy it too.
Mr Charney overstates his case when he says he can wear only his cock sock “anywhere in the United States”. The essence of his defence should be his right to wear what he likes in his property, not any right to upset other property owners with their different and duller ideas about what constitutes suitable apparel. But as for everything else, my verdict would be that Mary Nelson and her lawyer, Fink, should leave Mr Charney alone. If Ms. Nelson has discovered that she does not like working for Mr Charney and his multi-million dollar retail giant, she has a simple alternative. Find somewhere else to work and someone else to work for. Clearly this was the arrangement Mr Charney preferred, once he discovered Ms Nelson’s perverted taste for litigation. Ms Nelson should simply acknowledge the wisdom of Mr Charney’s decision, and look elsewhere for employment.
Somewhat off topic, but this reminds me of that old and wonderful piece of insight: when men treat women with the same manners and respect with which they treat other men, sexual harrassment lawsuits always seem to follow. So much for equality, eh?
What about in public spaces? Should a government be allowed to enact sumptuary laws regarding apparel in the public square?**
**I guess nobody would be surprised to find that I think they shouldn’t be allowed to do so and if people want to walk down the High Street naked, that’s fine so far as I’m concerned.***
***Is there some way to get small text in this crippled comment HTML? Disappointingly it seems to strip out all the fun tags like <small> and <span style=”foo:bar”> and stuff 🙁
Well, since my last comment got smited (can’t fathom why, but there you go) I’ll add one of my usual tiresome class-based analyses. Here’s how I’d address the issue of sexual harrassment-
Firstly there’s the usual Gramscian issue, of using minority displeasure to kick down the enemy (the “cultural hegemony” of white men in authority). But that’s standard to every progressive vs. liberty issue so not worth going over again, again.
The class issue is the expansion of women into the workplace. In the bad old days, only poor women worked (ye working class). Used to the workplace, they were just as bawdy as menfolk; e.g. a young man in a factory predominantly staffed by women would expect all sorts of comments, “harrassment”, initiation rituals, bottom pinching and anything else. I remember chatting to an oldish sparks who’d done a lot of work in an ink factory near where I lived; he told me how young men would be initiated by the women factory workers by being grabbed, stripped, and lowered into a vat of indelible ink. Heh. Those were the days.
The problem occurred when women from higher social classes started demanding entry to education and the workplace. They were used to be treated daintily in their parlours, and believed that that is the way the world is everywhere, much like the Queen believing the whole world smells of fresh paint. They were used to men treating them with “respect”; not swearing or making lewd comments and so on. They were coming out of a protected nest of cotton wool into reality.
Rather than recognise it as reality, they saw the behaviour as aberrant and “disrespectful” and demanded it be stopped. Which, since their class was the one with the political power, and buoyed by the Gramscian mindset, is how we ended up where we are today. It’s all about attempting to extended the constricted morality of the drawing room across all of society. Really, it’s time they were told to lighten up and have a laugh.
In those cases where it’s genuine harrassment rather than cheekiness, i.e. workplace bullying, the lesson is you don’t fit in and go get another job. I learned this lesson myself in a job where I just didn’t fit in, probably could have taken them to a tribunal for workplace bullying or emotional distress or something if I could have been arsed, and ended up getting the sack (thus closing the sweepstake I’d been running in my local about how long they’d take to find an excuse to sack me; I was hanging on for that so I’d get UB if I needed it). If you don’t fit in, you don’t fit in. Tough, but life’s like that. Go work somewhere that you do fit in.
Ah, but Ian B…
More often than not the folks who get sacked for not fitting in are not sacked for being the second coming (fnarr fnarr) of Sid James but because they don’t buy into the PC crap.
I have been sacked for typing too quick (showing up my “superiors”) it was a data entry job, inventing a way to batch print jobs (ditto), rescuing my Raybans from the River Tyne (showing initiative), being male and all sorts of things for which there is no legal redress.
Roll your eyes once too often during diversity training and you get a P-45. And no it won’t help one iota that you’ve rolled your eyes because they’re preaching to the converted who just aren’t homophobic, sexist or racist and you’re rolling your eyes because you feel abysmally patronised. It will make no odds. If you think diversity training is hog-wash you are automatically a bigot. Simple as.
They see me as a straight white European middle-class male and therefore regard me as needing remedial action. The fact that I’ve knocked about with all sorts of characters in my time and am not a racist buffoon or sexist tosser is irrelevant to them. The fact I’m just not off my own bat is a direct affront to whatever tenuous grasp they have upon a profession.
I am now self-employed. I ask myself some very searching questions on diversity. Mainly about whether a client’s cheque will bounce.
I still cannot stop smiling – not that I would want to work for that guy. But then, as Brain says, one never knows…naaah:-)
I’ve just decided that when my company expands beyond its current one-person operation, I’ll be a corporation with a strict dress code; underwear only. I think it’ll be tremendous for morale.
Also, “undressed Fridays”.
Such an office would make it difficult to buy Secret Santa gifts for. What would buy? A “My Other Suit is a Suit” cock sock?
Ian, seeing that you live in England, I’d urge you to consider the heating bills – clothes are not just for covering the naughty bits, you know:-)
Oh, it’s a very Green and energy-efficient policy, Alisa. Speaking from considerable experience in building services engineering, the problem is always keeping modern office buildings cool, not warm. Many are built these days without any heating whatsoever (off the top of my head from personal examples, the ABN Amro HQ in the City has only one small boiler that runs a small number of radiators to keep the plate glass from misting- there’s no heating in the rest of the building at all). A nearly nude or fully nudist company would have reduced energy bills, at least in a modern office building, by running the chillers less.
“Save The Planet- Take Off Your Clothes”. That’ll be my slogan.
:op
Where can I get a ‘Vote Ron Paul’ c–k sock?
In fact, I want 3 – one each in red, white and blue.
Ian: OK. But in my company you’d have to be very good looking to be hired under such policy:-) BTW, very interesting about office buildings. Is this due to better insulation?
Jez: and they say RP followers are sane:-)
I agree she doesn’t have to workk there , I also believe that a employer should have full power over who they higher or fire.
http://www.livelymoney.blogspot.com
The key fact here is that Charney did not fire Mary Nelson because she refused to partake in the masturbation session, but because she brought legal action against him for suggesting it. If, however, the former, rather than the latter, was true, then would everyone here feel the same way? I for one, would not, unless such a duty was specifically mentioned in a contract of employment, then Charney would be in the wrong.
Why do these things always happen in California?
Lee,
If a contract specified only wankers need apply then the problem would be the rush of applicants – mainly from HMRC, DEFRA and the Home Orifice…
Well, a lot is made here about the difference between behaviors critiqued by the State, either criminally or civilly, versus allowing to bring pressure to bear culturally. Do most people find this agreeable behavior? Culturally should we have minimum standards of conduct even at businesses you own, private property etc etc? Sure she should just leave, but we as observers is there some comment to made on the behavior? Or should we be disinterested? I suppose being this far removed, disinterest is ultimately the path to follow as we will all soon forget about it and move on. But what would our reaction be, other than filling a banker box with our personal items and heading for the door? Maybe it’s a given most think he is nuts (pardon the expression) and so goes without saying.
Asked whether he’d ever used the c-word for female genitalia at work…
Cocksock?
Might be “clam”.
I understand your reasoning on the rights of employers.
What are the rights of employees?
Some actions of employees will be restricted by the employment contract, but if an employer doesn’t negotiate specific terms restricting an employee’s actions then how widely do the rights of an employee extend?
In this case I think the problem is in the invitation to simultaneous masturbation; in an asymmetrical power relationship there’s an element of intimidation in such a request, isn’t there? Now there’s no physical contact at that stage, but if the response were to be ‘If you bring that subject up again I will hit you’ there’s an element of intimidation, but no physical contact, but you wouldn’t say that’s OK, would you?
Do you think it was OK for Prezza to have sex with his diary secretary? She consented, after all.
Regardless of the theoretical rights, which are interesting, this man sounds like a boor. I wouldn’t want to know him.
“In this case I think the problem is in the invitation to simultaneous masturbation; in an asymmetrical power relationship there’s an element of intimidation in such a request, isn’t there?”
I’m not sure that libertarians care about (or even believe in) ‘asymmetrical power relationships’.
Everything looks the same when you wear rose colored glasses. That is why every topic elicits the same response around here: We need to simply exercise our “choice” and every problem will no longer be one. I, for one, would be pretty unlikely to trade my legal rights in for the one you people advocate: the right to get shitcanned for no reason. Thanks, and all, but I actually live in the real world and have seen plenty of workplace abuse–and it has squat to do about “choice.” Am I the only one here who has?
This is the asinine side of libertarianism. It puts ideas before people, before how life is actually lived.
And please try to be slightly less credulous: You people actually quibble over why this woman was fired? When your boss tries to plug you, it is implicit your job is on the line.
What if this were not some fancy-pants job, but at a factory where this employee is just making her bills? And what if this woman had half a career at that firm? Her pension would be paltry and she might have a terrible time getting a new job. She would face dislocation. You agree she should be canned, on this guy’s sexual whim?
Well, that is your “right.” I am exercising mine by stating the obvious: you people need to get out more.
Even if we want to be strict libertarians about this, the “if you don’t like it, quit” response seems a bit cavalier to me. Taking a job entails all sorts of opportunity costs: Sometimes extreme ones like moving, but at the very least, foregoing other employment offers, other opportunities to build experience and so on. Surely it’s unfair to then spring this sort of behavior on them and expect them to bear all the costs of switching.
Might be “clam”
Any others beginning with ‘C’ we can think of, aside from the obvious?
I’ve always been a fan of ‘axewound’, but clearly that’s precluded from this list…
Not so sure, Julian, as he seems to have fired her not for refusing to play ‘pull the sock’, but for going to a lawyer to sue him.
If he in fact fired her for saying “No thanks!” or even “No thanks, now piss off you juvenile, presumptuous and scrofulous jackanapes!”, then you might have a point.
Otherwise I do not see why he should have to carry the cost of the consequences of her involving the state in a social interaction of that sort.
Michiganny:
Suppose an employee has received considerable benefits from a company e.g. on training, paid certifications (and the informal benefit of experience to put on their CV). If they decide to leave (i.e. shitcan their employer) should they be required to compensate the employer? Should they be prevented by law from leaving without justifying it to a tribunal?
Libertarians may not care about ‘assymetrical power relationships’ and that’s OK, but how can they not believe in them?
I don’t care about Newcastle Falcons, or ‘The Marriage of Figaro’.
But libertarians do care about intimidation, surely. Libertarianism is grounded in freedom of action, not coercion.
Back to my question, which is a question I haven’t yet worked out an answer to, what are the rights of an employee?
Samizdata is clearly the property of people other than me, and hence it is not my call; however, I cannot but wonder if anyone else thinks that Ian B (with and without his self-interested view in sexual licence) is a rather sophisticated (and perhaps successful) sort of troll.
Best regards
The same as those of an employer. Human rights are universal.
Is it meaningful to use the term “rights” in this situation? Why should some person, engaging in particular specified contracts with others, gain specially enumerated rights beyond their normal ones (life, liberty, property)? Isn’t this the progressive fallacy that certain specified groups (employees, or consumers, say) have certain collective rights arbitrarily defined by government? Are these things rights at all, or special favours?
Every one I have known in that position has had a contract stipulating repayment on leaving within a specified period. This related to certified training – other on-the-job training is to mutual benefit surely.
On the more general issue, working for someone is not just about the right to enter their property. It is a contractual relationship and unless that contract gives the employer the right to abuse his position of power in order to behave like a stupid shit (in which case more fool you for signing it), then you have the right not to be subject to such abuse.
Jan, Michiganny will probably answer for herself. I want to say that in my field, there is a written (less often-verbal) agreement between an employer and the member of the staff whose educational/training expenses being funded by employer.
My own example: when one firms I used to work before announced the management would encourage their employees to participate in after-business-hours lighting design seminar (not a mandatory requirement in my profession) , they offered to pay for the classes but not compensate the employees for the time spent.
It was also stated that the employee who took the seminar was expected to work for the Co for at least 6 more months, unless (s)he was laid off or fired by other reasons.
It’s a two-way street, Ian – and I agree with Michiganny: you need to go out more.
I certainly believe in them. In fact libertarians tend to be obsessed by them (namely the assymetrical power between individual and state).
To receive their full contractually agreed terms of employment in the form of remuneration and nature of employment. If the contract specified they can be fired because the boss has a headache, then so be it, if not, there may well be more to it than that.
An employee saying “no, I do not want to have sex with you, boss” is behaving perfectly reasonably. That should not get you fired in and off itself unless the nature of the employment contract makes cause irrelevant (see above).
However unless the company explicitly stated they can fire you just for the hell of it, it is not unreasonable to assume that if fired for reasonable behaviour (such as refusing to play pull the sock), that may involves a breach of implied contract or at least an implied liability with the associated costs (see Julian Sanchez’ comment above). That is a nebulous and dangerous area (which is why common law and common sense need to be used) but that does not mean the approach is without merit.
So y’all don’t think that an employee has a right to not be sexually degraded or humiliated in the work place? I’m not just talking about this particular case (outlandish though the behavior is), but more theoretically. Is there no line that can be crossed? No boundaries on human behavior that limit what an employer can subject their employee to, other than physical assault?
You don’t think that (for instance) a single mother with a child with a chronic illness, who is completely dependent on keeping her job and her insurance to afford vital medical treatments for the child, should have the right to a workplace free from sexual harassment or coercian? That such a woman should be entitled to go to work without having her boss, who might be well aware of her desperation to keep her job, propositioning her sexually or subjecting her to lewd displays?
Your boss suddenly pulling his cock out and proceeding to stroke it should be considered acceptable workplace behavior, and if you are offended you are free to quit – dependents be damned?
No concept of ‘assymetrical power relationships’ at all?
And no belief in the possibilty of damages that aren’t physical or financial? Emotional damage is meaningless in your world view?
Just curious…
I cannot but wonder if anyone else thinks that Ian B (with and without his self-interested view in sexual licence) is a rather sophisticated (and perhaps successful) sort of troll.
I was under the impression that the entire point of this blog was to be provocative.
Competition works in this, as in all else. If your boss propositions you, tell his boss. Presumably it is against company policy, and grounds for firing him. If sexual harassment is company policy, well, then unless there are plenty of employees who enjoy it, then that particular firm will soon be creatively destroyed.
Why the insistence upon pushing one set of social etiquette upon all of society?
I agree with Evan, but I also think that unless you signed away the right to expect reasonable behaviour (which is certainly your right), then unreasonable behaviour by a company is grounds for tort if they are immune to social remedy.
By that I mean if telling your boss to piss off (social remedy) when he propositions you gets you fired, you have a reasonable case for tort unless you signed that away… but if he does indeed do the decent thing and piss off, I don’t see why you should then have grounds for suing anyone.
Stuff like this is why I actually have no problem with the idea of labour unions. Free association for all, right?
A lot of libertarians need to get to get their heads around the idea of ‘implied contract’ because without it, civilisation is pretty much untenable.
When you go into a restaurant, you do not sign a contract or waiver yet you have a reasonable expectation that the restaurant will do its damnedest not to kill you by serving you spoiled or poisoned food. That is an implied contract to observe reasonable norms of hygiene and food preparation.
I think the same applies to not having the boss wave his cock in your face, PARTICULARLY once you have indicated that you would rather he didn’t. You didn’t sign up for that unless you agreed to a pretty strange employment contract. I think you have a reasonable expectation that at least basic social norms (such as “no thanks”) will be obeyed.
BTW, very interesting about office buildings. Is this due to better insulation?
I expect it’s due to the mini-space heaters found under most desks these days- you know, the ones rated in gigahertz.
Two comments:
Sophisticated trolls aren’t all that bad. One thinks of Shrek in a tuxedo, with a martini. A troll that refrains from defecating on the floor is at worst half-a-troll.
And I recently moved into a newly-constructed residential building. We aren’t working the furnace all that hard (and this is in Minnesota!) because the place is so well sealed the heat of cooking and such is enough at times to overheat us. I suspect the cooling bill will be fierce, though.
I have no idea what definition of “troll” is being used here other than, perhaps, the tribal one (this person is not one of us). Pointing at somebody and shouting “troll” normally indicates a desire to evict them from the tribal space. If my views offend the groupthink, fine, I’ll fuck off. But please don’t start insinuating some kind of malign conspiracy behind my attempts at an honest explication of my views.
Regarding the “power relationships” issue, I think everyone’s missing the point. Human interaction is rife with asymmetric power relationships. Right now, my power relationship with Gordon Brown is hopelessly asymmetric. He can order to me to do whatever he wants, and I am powerless to resist. Can I have a remedy for that please? No? Why not? Ah, because he has a big gang of supporters, that’s why. Ah well, I’d better bend over and smile then.
Anyway, let’s think of something less extreme. Is it acceptable for a man to ask a female employee out to dinner?
That is entirely for the said employee to decide. Some people, including Ms. Nelson, and yes, even including single mothers with sick children, need to lighten up. Just learn to open you damn mouth and say either “I am very flattered, but regrettably I will have to decline your kind offer”, or, alternately “F…k off you dirty pervert before I punch your lights out”. In my experience, if you really mean it, most guys will back off. Now if they don’t, that’s a different story. If they actually touch you, that’s a different story as well. It does not seem as if either happened to Ms. Nelson. Some people (way too many it seems) are just lawyer happy these days, and I doubt lawyers are to blame for this.
No one has raised the question of what she looks like. It seems to me that that is the main issue here.
After all these years of reading blogs, I still am not sure what the general definition is (yes, I know SI has that glossary thingy, but I did not find it very helpful – I am sure it’s just me, though).
I like Ian, even though he is a bit too obsessed with sex for my taste, but that’s not a big deal, since I don’t have to marry him. The same goes for you Nick dear, BTW, and I like you too (now that I looked, the poor guy only commented once on this thread…oh well).
exhelodrvr: why?
Good point about implied contracts; if we expect everyone to explicitly agree on every point of an exchange, the transaction costs will be absurd. I think that we forget that far too often.
Alisa,
That was tongue-in-cheek. (Pun intended.)
😛
@Ian B: I’m surprised, but try Wikipedia on (Internet) troll.
As I hope you realise, ‘sophisticated’ is a serious modifier, and I accept Wikipedia’s view that the term (with or without modifiers) is highly subjective.
In so far as I have any right to restrict the rather wide interpretation of meaning, I intended it to indicate distraction from more worthy actvity, of more than minor event.
As to your concern over ‘tribalism’, others might give you a view as to my ‘belonging to’ and being (fiercely) defensive of ‘Tribe Samizdata’, as might modest research on my previous comments. Dr Ellen defends sophisticated trolls; I’m sure others will defend you too (as might I on other topics on other days).
If you go away (or f*** off as you put it), that is surely your individual decision, open to every one of us at any time; I think it’s allowed here.
You claim no ulterior motive behind your “attempts at an honest explication of my views”. I’m glad if that is so and, despite my inherent scepticism of just about everything, your words indicate hurt — that currently inclines me to accept your claim. However, the difference between intent and effect is not a total defence against trollism, at least as I understand it (nor against much else). And your hurt at my words is interestingly at variance with your promulgation of robust activity over the sensibilities of others.
@Dr Ellen, who wrote:
Agreed; but they stay around longer: sitting on, and often breaking, the chairs.
For us all, time will tell.
Best regards
Nigel, thank you so much for all your help. I really, really, had no idea what the word “troll” means until you so helpfully presented me with your link to sodding wikipedia. I wonder, can you use your 1337 h4xx0r skilz to find an article explaining what a pompous poltroon is, while you’re at it?
Back to the situation described – the part that I find ‘odd’ about the descriptions that comes through about the situation is that the workplace was already apparently not your run of the mill suit and tie, or even ‘business casual’ atmosphere – so I have to wonder how long the complainant worked there. I don’t get the impression that she was asked to ‘join in a bit of fun’ on her first or second day in the office.
It does seem that the employer, while a bit eccentric, was fairly consistent in his behavior – shocking as it may be to the well heeled. And it appears from the responses gathered during deposition, that he was fairly open and honest about the entire matter – doesn’t give the impression there was any sneaking or lying involved. As such, I’d find it rather unlikely that the refusal of an invitation to play would have gained her much more than a shrug by way of a response (that’s pure speculation, but my experience with people of apparently similar attitudes towards clothing and sexual contact makes me tend to think so – they usually are the least bothered by rejection that I’ve met).
In general, I agree that the employer in this case, while deserving of the labels of eccentric and unconventional, doesn’t deserve to suffer from an employee that arbitrarily decided that her personal boundaries had been violated, and as such, was entitled to play judicial lotto with her boss playing the bank.
If, on the other hand, she’d declined to participate and expressed her lack of interest in such activity, and the employer had either repeated, on a separate occasion, or made participation a condition of continued employment after she’d said no – then that would be different – but, this doesn’t appear to be the case.
Therefore – she shouldn’t have a case. But, unfortunately, she probably does.
That is enough ad hominems for one thread please, ladies and gents.
And back on topic… yes, I agree with Wind Rider completely, it seems this guy is primarily guilty of daring to consistently and openly buck the neo-puritan consensus.
Of course if the facts suggest harassment and threats rather than just daring to be different, that changes things somewhat.
If he fired her after “he learned she planned to meet with a lawyer”, he is denying her freedom of association.
The only freedom he is denying her is the freedom to associate with himself and his business.
A meeting with a lawyer may be to get advice – like ‘how do I stop this dipstick waving his cock around’. It doesn’t mean that she would have ever done anything. It is unlikely, lawyers being the mercenary bunch they are, but the advice could have been much as set out by others here.
That guy is a twat. I wouldn’t work for him for any amount of money. If he came to me wearing a cock sock i’d tell him where to stick his job.
However I couldn’t agree more that as owner he should be allowed to do as he pleases.
I have the right to meet with lawyers in my personal time.
I also have the right to meet with doctors in my personal time, and accountants, and painters, and gardeners, pool boys, librarians, my children’s school teachers, the caterers for my wedding and a whole host of others.
If I can be fired for seeing a lawyer, I can also be fired for choosing my cousin as my wedding caterer, for example, instead of choosing the Cock Sock Jock’s cousin as my wedding caterer when he tells me that I must.
By what libertarian principle is such extortion defended?
Adriane, what concept is being presented here is that nobody has the “right” to a job. There’s no “Job Tree” I can walk up to and pluck my perfect dream career off the lowest-hanging branch. I have to work for it, and the concept is that nobody with the State–nobody with the monopoly on legally-used force–can get in my way. “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” isn’t a list of things people are owed by some faceless person in a far-off city. They’re a list of things everyone on Earth has from birth, and that goon is forbidden to take from us. The Pursuit isn’t a verb, it’s a noun, a career path that we ourselves choose, and we can’t be told “Well Adriane, your Pa was a baker, your Granpa was a baker, so by Order of Parliament and Congress, you’re going to be a baker too!”
So what I want to know is this: If the lady was such a hotshot at her actual job instead of litigation, why is she working for this immature jerk anyways? Why isn’t she self-employed, perhaps with a single partner/employee to manage the business-affairs side of running a company? From the look of things, she’d probably have been more focused on the business than this guy is anyways. But no, instead of going into business for herself, or even working for a competitor, she has to litigate both herself and her former employer out of the market. Pathetic.
No body has the right to a specific job.
But upon entering a contract with an employer, one has a job.
That job is then covered by law.
I do not have the right to have a handsome and charming prince for a husband, no matter how many frogs I kiss.
But having entered into a marital contract, the marriage is covered by law in that my husband can not beat me, can not set me on fire, can not forge my name on insurance papers and the like.
Can he do all of these things? Yes. But when he does them, he answers to the State which says it is illegal to beat people, set them on fire, and forge their signature.
I do not give up these rights upon marriage.
In the same line of reasoning, if Cock Sock Jock and Mary Nelson were 2 completely independent people, Cock Sock Jock would have no right to interfere with Mary Nelson’s Freedom of Association.
Having entered into the contract of employee-ship to CSJ, Mary Nelson did not give up that right.
When one enters into a contract of employee-ship, the conditions of that contract must be legal: I can not contractually demand your first born son if you and I are house painter and homeowner, respectively. I could, quite legally, if you and I were surrogate mother and client, respectively.
There are many reasons for which Mary Nelson can be legally fired from the employment contract she has entered into with CSJ. But exercising Freedom of Association on her personal time is not one of them.
That Mary Nelson should simply leave and not press legal charges for illegal activity – her choice. But if you were to suggest that a violent husband // or a violent wife should simply be divorced and not brought up on charges of assault and battery, you agree that illegal activity is less serious between people connected by some form of social contract than it is between persons completely unrelated.
Is that really the argument you wish to make?
Adriane, not sure I follow you… whose ‘freedom of association’ is being infringed here and what does that have to do with a social interaction?
If Mary Nelson was fired for stating her intention to see a lawyer, then she was fired for exercising her freedom of association. Mary Nelson has the right to consult with a lawyer, a doctor, an architect – or what ever professional she seeks to associate with.
A person does not sign away these rights upon entering a contract of employment; and therefore, her boss’ right, or legal ability, to deny her freedom of association is the same as if he and Mary Nelson are complete strangers with no degree of social interaction between them, i.e. none.
Several commenters where have pointed out that their preferred solution would simply be for Mary Nelson to leave her place of employment if she did not enjoy working there. I believe the situation constituted a more serious situation than “not enjoying working there”.
Mary Nelson was not fired because she said “You walking around in a cock sock makes working in this place suck.” Mary Nelson was not fired for thinking that working for a boss in cock sock sucks.
Mary Nelson was fired for stating that she was going to see a lawyer. She not only has the right to consult with a lawyer, she has the right to consult with a 2nd lawyer to get an additional opinion. And a 3rd and a 4th if she chooses.
Mary Nelson’s boss tried to remove her Freedom of Association as a condition for continued employment. Having already entered into a contract of employment with her, he can not do that.
If he greeted her at the door during her job interview and said if I as your boss walk around in a cock sock would you go see a lawyer, and she said yes – they have not yet entered a contract of employment, and he would not have to hire her or any other job applicant. But having hired her, he can not demand that she perform illegal activities nor can he demand she give up her rights to continue with her contract of employment.
He can fire her for cheating on a time sheet, for failing a drug test, for calling other employees racial slurs, for leaving the coffee pot plugged in over the weekend and starting the office on fire. There are legal reasons for which employees can get fired.
Consulting a lawyer, or merely stating an intent to consult a lawyer, is not one of them.
I see. No, you are mistaken then. Freedom of Association is a right a STATE should not infringe. Like freedom of religion or the right to keep and bear arms…Why should a business grant you ‘freedom of association’? Or be forced to hire you if they dislike your religion? Or allow you to bring guns onto company property if they would rather you didn’t?
That seems a perfectly reasonable reason to fire you… the fact that you are talking to a lawyer with a view to attacking the company is not a good reason? It is an excellent reason!
I knew a woman in The City who lost her job because after work she hung out of competitors to the company she worked for and she lost at an employment tribunal when she admitted work related topics often came up in conversation.
Did he in fact violate her freedom of association? Or did he merely exercise the fact that his right to freely associate includes a right to NOT freely associate with her?
And was there actually a contract limiting the terms under which she could be fired? I don’t know about where this happened, but in my state, in the absence of a specific written contract, all employment is at-will. If she had a contract, then she should seriously consider enforcing it through the civil courts rather than the media.
Let me give you a hypothetical: Let’s say I’m a public employee in a sensitive position where I have the ability to seriously ruin peoples’ lives, like maybe a cop or some such. Let’s then say that I start hanging around with meth dealers and gangbangers, and possibly join their gang. Would it be within my employer’s prerogatives to discipline or fire me for associating with Klansmen and gangstas and other known criminals?
Either this right to associate and to continue to cash an employer’s checks is absolute, or it isn’t.
Michiganny will reply for “herself”?
I assumed that Michiganny was male – yes among my many faults is sexism.
I do not have a problem with using bad languge to men (although I should do), but I do have a problem with using it to women.
Still “asinine” and “you should get out more” is the standard of “argument” I would expect from a subsidized academic or a main stream media creature rather than a thinking human being.
What rights does an employee have?
On top contract rights the employee has standard nonaggression principle rights – i.e. the right to not be attacked, and the right to leave.
Some people say the military is different, but I bet Captain Bligh wished he had left Fletcher Christian and the rest of the drugs and native women obsessed people behind on Tahiti when they asked to be left there (after all most of the crew supported Bligh, but the minority who did not want to finish the mission proved to be a bit of a problem).
“But the owner of the factory may walk around naked asking me to have sex with him”.
Then leave – if he tries to stop you he should be tossed in jail.
“But I need the money”.
So the only job you can get is to be employed by a man who likes walking round in the nude calling on people to have sex with him.
What does this say about YOU?
I remember getting into a car to be driven to a site to guard.
When I was in the car I was told that I was going to another site – I did not feel like it so I got out of the car.
Had they wanted to sack me that would have been their business (I would have just been in my present situation a few years ago – rather than now).
Life is a bitch and then you die.
But that is no excuse to violate the nonaggression principle.
i.e. to either have them try and prevent me leaving the car, or for me “going to law” if they had decided to fire me.