So you aren't a fan of the first amendment. My mail carrier makes editorial comments all the time, should I rat him out?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
|
So you aren't a fan of the first amendment. My mail carrier makes editorial comments all the time, should I rat him out?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
Well, there ya go... That's the trouble with you right wingers.. You don't understand the Constitution of this fair land.Quote:
So you aren't a fan of the first amendment.
Telemarketers in the workplace DON'T have First Amendment rights. In fact, NOBODY in the workplace has 'em. If your boss doesn't like what you say, or the color of your shirt, he can FIRE you. How do you not know that??? Do you think you have 1st Amendment rights HERE on this website??? You probably DO think that.
Bwa, ha ha ha ha.
excon
So you believe peons have to surrender their rights as a condition of public employment. Odd how fluid your view of the constitution has become.
Go tell the boss you have rights and let me know how that works out for ya. He doesn't care about your rights. Its his company, and he can fire you if you don't do as you are directed to do.
You may not like it, but that's the way it is. What are you going to do if you hate unions, or there is no union to beetch too?
I don't pretend that I have unfettered rights working for a private company. The right to be a total a$$ is reserved for unions, tenured teachers and Democrat politicians. Public employees work for the people. Regardless, firing this lady was a mean, petty thing to do and you know it. Your side used to be on her side.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Funny how the tables have turned and you're perfectly willing to throw her under the bus but not the people responsible for putting her in that awkward position. Must be more of that famous liberal compassion.
Hello again, Steve:
Lemme explain the law.. You CAN'T surrender a right you DON'T have. The freedom we enjoy is against the government stifling our speech - NOT your boss.Quote:
So you believe peons have to surrender their rights
Whether you're a peon or a CEO, you don't have a right to free speech at work.. Limbaugh doesn't. I don't. You don't. NOBODY does.
This isn't difficult... But, it's becoming clearer and CLEARER that you wingers haven't a CLUE about your own country..
excon
When she was told the call was being aired, she should have hung up after saying "Not interested."Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Can we call a truce to the rock throwing today and just stick with the facts?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I really don't have enough facts to do anything but say Hannity's conduct cost a person their job. I have no clue as to why her boss fired her, or what the instructions she violated were, but firing a new person for any damn thing is all too prevalent in all businesses and governments and reflect a total lack of tolerance by bosses and the relationship with their "peon" employees.
It may border on mistreatment, or may just be her boss covering her own a$$. I don't know.
I would have turned to a supervisor and said its for you. That's how I would have covered my own a$$.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That's the rule CYA.
Good move. My supers (local government, Libraryland) would tell us to hand over any irate or weird or demanding or questionable patron to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And apparently you got another one wrong... was you listening to the call that day? I highly doubt it... I in fact was... and I heard EVERYTHING she said... and she didn't say anything she didn't have the right to say. But I guess she was a slave and didn't have first amendment rights... she was in the USA, Florida to be precise... and not Mumbai India.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, smoothy:
In so many words, you're right.. In fact, I'll bet if you were answering somebody on the legal boards who got fired for speaking their mind, you'd tell them that they have NO 1st Amendment rights at work. And, you'd be right.Quote:
But I guess she was a slave and didn't have first amendment rights...
I'm not gonna go through my legal treatise here, but look a page back and see the discussion Steve and I had.
By the way, IF you're gonna answer questions on the legal board, you SHOULD familiarize yourself with the law, doncha think?
excon
Its obvious you never even heard the call that was being talked about did you? And what she actually said... and wasn't saying? But you still intend on arguing about it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Incidentally...when did you pass the BAR anyway?
Hello again, smoothy:
In this great country of ours, absent a contract, the employee/employer relationship is "at will". That's a legal term meaning that your employer can fire you for ANY reason, or NO reason at all.Quote:
Its obvious you never even heard the call that was being talked about did you? And what she actually said... and wasn't saying?
Therefore, if they simply didn't like that she talked to Hannity, or if they didn't like the color of her hair, they have the RIGHT to fire her. If you DIDN'T know that, I'd stay OFF the legal boards. The flower boards could use some help.
excon
PS> Thanks. I DO know law better than most lawyers.
Yes that right an employer can fire anyone for any reason or no reason at all. I did not know of the specifics until today. Evidently the call center company hired by the Obots fired the girl for violating a policy that they had not told her about... perfectly within their right , But you know and I know that sucks anyway.
Hello again, tom:
I wasn't asked about the fairness of it. But, she DID offer her opinion, which was clearly AGAINST the interest of her employer. I don't think there's anything unfair about firing an employee like that... I DEMAND adherence to MY rules in MY workplace. As a right winger, you can understand that.
excon
As your employee I would fully follow all the rules you actually told me about . But if I broke a rule that I had no idea existed ,and was fired because of the infraction ,I would feel wronged by such harsh and unfair treatment . You would too .
I betcha she knew deep in her heart of hearts as she was talking with Hannity that she was slamming her boss and company. If she didn't, she was an immature, brainless idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Maybe... the relevant question is did she know talking to him was against policy ?
The library I worked at for 25 years had all sorts of policies the employees didn't know about. (And the policies keep changing and getting updated.) Yeah, the employees were told about them at hiring, but who remembers? Even if the policies are noted in a pretty little booklet, who reads that and keeps it around?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Do you know all your company's policies as pertains to its employees?
And isn't it common sense? You don't badmouth your employer to a third party who also happens to be a stranger (and is on the air no less).
I'm curious if ANYONE that's defending that employer... actually heard the entire conversation that aired?
Because I've heard it....and every person I've ever worked with at any job I've ever had in the last 30+ years has said far worse things about their employer....or boss or whatever.....and not one of them was ever fired for it.
Michelle Obama's Princeton classmate was Obamacare website builder | The Daily Caller
Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is executive at company that built Obamacare website
First Lady Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is a top executive at the company that earned the contract to build the failed Obamacare website.
Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company.
Townes-Whitley and her Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.
Toni Townes ’85 is a onetime policy analyst with the General Accounting Office and previously served in the Peace Corps in Gabon, West Africa. Her decision to return to work, as an African-American woman, after six years of raising kids was applauded by a Princeton alumni publication in 1998
George Schindler, the president for U.S. and Canada of the Canadian-based CGI Group, CGI Federal’s parent company, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company gained the Obamacare website contract.
As reported by the Washington Examiner in early October, the Department of Health and Human Services reviewed only CGI’s bid for the Obamacare account. CGI was one of 16 companies qualified under the Bush administration to provide certain tech services to the federal government. A senior vice president for the company testified this week before The House Committee on Energy and Commerce that four companies submitted bids, but did not name those companies or explain why only CGI’s bid was considered.
On the government end, construction of the disastrous Healthcare.gov website was overseen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a division of longtime failed website-builder Kathleen Sebelius’ Department of Health and Human Services.
Update: The Daily Caller repeatedly contacted CGI Federal for comment. After publication of this article, the company responded that there would be “nothing coming out of CGI for the record or otherwise today.” The company did however insist that The Daily Caller include a reference to vice president Cheryl Campbell’s House testimony. This has been included as a courtesy to the company.
Public comments that millions heard?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
It was broadcast live... Everyone that was listening to his show that afternoon heard every word of it. So his entire audience heard it... I was one of them, so was my wife. (we were driving home from work).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But not everyone gets their negative comments about their company or boss broadcast live on the radio. You had said, "...every person I've ever worked with at any job I've ever had in the last 30+ years has said far worse things about their employer....or boss or whatever.....and not one of them was ever fired for it."Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Did you hear what these so called "negative comments" actually were? And the context they were made?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Because I didn't hear her bashing anyone when she spoke.
Her comments were positive for the AC and the computer program?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Frequently comments by many people are taken out of context, however whether you are being specifically critical or making remarks that can be taken as critical, it is better not to big note yourself and yield to media traps. If you are not authorised to be a spokesperson you should keep your thoughts to yourselfQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
That call center wasn't the DNC... she's got legal grounds for a serious lawsuit if she was fired for her political affiliation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And appropriately enough... it was a sweatshop (not paying a "living wage") pawning a ponzi scheme nobody wants... very typical of liberals...
Nothing she said was anything like its being made out to be... obviously since like most other things... those people weren't there and didn't here it themselves....they are talking and ranting about something they don't have any of the facts about.
In a nutshell what she said was the people she's been talking to weren't very happy about Obama-care...
But we all know the ACLU would have jumped to her defense if she made a comment supporting ,... say for arguments sake, baby murder (abortion)
Well, we know you didn't hear it because I don't believe that show is broadcast in your part of the world. And its unlikely you would have been listening to the streaming version of it (assuming its not blocked outside the USA.)Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Because she wasn't doing that in any way shape or form.
I read the transcript, you have to ask, why was she in that situationQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Yes she was, I heard it live and she was being interviewed and interrogated and prompted by Hannity to get responses which she did instead of notifying her supervisor immediately. She knew she had no authority to even comment on things outside her area of expertise and should hve thought about it before she allowed herself to even be in this position. No doubt even you would have more sense than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
That was an unprofessional thing to do. Don't try to spin it in her defense just because you hate liberals and always take the negative view.
Well Tal her firing might have been a bit arbitrary, considering she was very low in the organisation, surely she could have been reassignedQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
lol I love the left's sense of fairness . The truth is that she had no instructions to not speak to the press. Her bosses must've known that there was a possibility that the press would try to contact given that the emperor had that very day made a very public promo about the 800 # being a viable alternative to the web site .Quote:
She knew she had no authority to even comment
This is my guess... had Rachel Madcow or anyone else in the MSDNC called and put her on live ,she'd still be working there today.
Why would the left even see a reason to grill a call center worker? They would have asked Kathleen Sebelius to appear on their show. See the difference? Of course you don't Hannity was pulling a stunt. And he didn't quit when he was told the website was down.
We see these sorts of stunts all the time from shock jocks, it is the way they make their dayQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Shock jock. An interesting term for Hannity because he is not a serious journalist.
He never claimed to be a journalist... unlike some of the' gate keepers of the truth ' on NBC ,CBS,CNN ,ABC et al. On both TV and radio he is an advocate for a view point . He makes no attempt to hide his position under the banner of objective journalism. He's also not very entertaining... but that is a different issue than the one at hand... that they fired the women for violating policy they did not tell her about . My opinion is that they were being petty because no one dare question the emperor.
It's an attitude you see. The same attitude that would make Sebelius think she works exclusively for the emperor as opposed for the American people . The same attitude that makes her think it's OK to ignore a request to testify before Congress. The moment a public servant tells you they do not work for you is the moment they cross the line from public servant to ruler.
Right, their sense of fairness, compassion and tolerance is entirely agenda driven. If it doesn't fit the agenda too bad for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:31 AM. |