Koran Burner fired from his JOB (Violation of 1A?)

[Joe Williams]

snip
I see no reason why government workers should enjoy any greater protection in such matters.

Because, unlike private employers, this is an example of the government attacking your Constitutional rights, and that is prohibited.

 

[CarmelHP]

So then no government employee is an at-will employee? Is that what you're saying?

I find that very hard to believe.

I find it very hard to believe that is your understanding of what I wrote. Just as I find it to believe that we have so many fans of the spoils system, that in the 19th century turned into wholesale, balls out legalized thievery on a grand scale. I suppose people believe, or construe, what they wish.

 

[Fletch]

Just as I find it to believe that we have so many fans of the spoils system, that in the 19th century turned into wholesale, balls out legalized thievery on a grand scale.

Oooohhhh... That's a fun twist to throw into the discussion... Kudos to you sir! I'm not convinced that at-will necessarily equals spoils system, and think the two could be differentiated in practice, but I'll grant that on the surface there's some traps that need identifying.

 

[hornadylnl]

WhyTF is the government in the business of operating choo choo trains to begin with. His job should not be a function of the government to begin with.

 

[dukeboy_318]

Okay, I that his bosses were idiots, raise your hand if you knew before he was fired and the media grabbed hold of it where the guy actually worked! Let's see im willing to say no one but maybe a dozen people, now the whole country knows, way to go new jersey

Oh some one asked if new jersey was a work at will state, well it is

Read very last paragraph on the page

Department of Labor and Workforce Development | How to File a Wage Claim FAQs

 

[Hawkeye]

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, IMO. I can be fired from my job for saying something my employer finds inappropriate; it's not that I have been threatened with jail or force, it's that I've embarrassed the company and left it open to criticisms and pressures that it would not otherwise face. I see no reason why government workers should enjoy any greater protection in such matters.

absolutely right. 1A is protection against GOVERNMENT not a private employer-employee relationship.

Since this is a IN forum, I'll also mention that IN is an "employment at will" State. Legally speaking that means that your employer does not need very much in the way of "reasons" to terminate the relationship, assuming not contractual obligations or company policy to the contrary.

 

[Loco179]

Yep I am sure he is going to lawyer up.

Thing is that they know it will be years till they have to pay up. By that time they will not be able to pay because NYC will be bankrupt.

 

[Joe Williams]

absolutely right. 1A is protection against GOVERNMENT not a private employer-employee relationship.

Since this is a IN forum, I'll also mention that IN is an "employment at will" State. Legally speaking that means that your employer does not need very much in the way of "reasons" to terminate the relationship, assuming not contractual obligations or company policy to the contrary.

Except you are choosing to ignore the fact that his employer was the govnernment, and they can not be allowed to violate Constitutional rights merely because their victim is an employee.

 

[Grizhicks]

While I haven't read all the posts above, please remember that working for the government, you may give up some of your rights. And if that is the price you are willing to pay, so be it. I'm a federal DoD employee, and I know that I cannot get into politics (run for office or activity campaign for someone). I can wear a button (off hours), but I know that I'm very limited and if I go too far can be fired. Most government jobs (at any level) have some type of ethics code, and breaking them is a fire-able offense.

It goes back to, "what price are you willing to pay for your job?".

Just my ... -- Greg

 

[Fletch]

Except you are choosing to ignore the fact that his employer was the govnernment, and they can not be allowed to violate Constitutional rights merely because their victim is an employee.

And the core of my argument is that there is a distinct moral difference between government-as-government and government-as-employer. Government-as-employer should be able to abide by the same rules as any other employer, and that includes termination for any reason or no reason.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

And the core of my argument is that there is a distinct moral difference between government-as-government and government-as-employer. Government-as-employer should be able to abide by the same rules as any other employer, and that includes termination for any reason or no reason.

Even in Indiana, a government can rarely get away with firing a non-appointed employee without scads of paperwork and voluminous proof of non-compliance with regulations. Unless the act is criminal or so eggregious it violates a "no-tolerance" rule, I don't see how the employer could get away with firing him for only a single violation of policy.

 

[96firephoenix]

it all depends on how his contract is worded...

 

[Fletch]

Even in Indiana, a government can rarely get away with firing a non-appointed employee without scads of paperwork and voluminous proof of non-compliance with regulations. Unless the act is criminal or so eggregious it violates a "no-tolerance" rule, I don't see how the employer could get away with firing him for only a single violation of policy.

Again, I'm arguing what I think is right, not what presently exists. To the extent that Indiana (or New Jersey) laws prevent what is right, those laws are wrong.

 

[CarmelHP]

And the core of my argument is that there is a distinct moral difference between government-as-government and government-as-employer. Government-as-employer should be able to abide by the same rules as any other employer, and that includes termination for any reason or no reason.

No, there is a distinct moral difference between an employer whose ultimate boss actually put up his private money to finance the enterprise saying what is what, and a guys with no skin in the game using the levers of government to reward or punish those with which they have political, religious, viewpoint, racial or ethnic differences. The government is subject to the Constitution in all its dealings, I can't believe anyone would argue otherwise.

 

[Fletch]

No, there is a distinct moral difference between an employer whose ultimate boss actually put up his private money to finance the enterprise saying what is what, and a guys with no skin in the game using the levers of government to reward or punish those with which they have political, religious, viewpoint, racial or ethnic differences. The government is subject to the Constitution in all its dealings, I can't believe anyone would argue otherwise.

I understand your argument, and agree without reservation that you are legally correct, but I can't bring myself to morally endorse your position. Job protection for unelected bureaucrats just because they're bureaucrats smacks of special privilege to me.

I ran from my government job as soon as the opportunity arose, for precisely the reason that the purported job security encouraged complacency in my fellow coworkers and myself, and this was in a government organization that I would rate as exceptional in terms of mission-orientation, work ethic, and a culture of productivity.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

In this instance, the NJ employee was fired because of a value-based evaluation of his off-duty actions. The NJ Transit authority looked at the situation and said, "we think his off-duty actions are in violation of what we value." The problem is that what the NJ Transit authority has said is, that the government believes expressions of religious freedom are not acceptable. Thus, if you do them, you will lose your job.

This is all ok in the private sector because the private sector has owners that may make moral and values-based decisions. The private sector also faces the market response to such decisions. However, the government should not be able to force its values upon its employees through fear of reprisal.

If the government as employer should be able to dictate values and morals to their employees, then what values and morals should be chosen? As the NJ employee example shows, the government will choose values which protect some while harm others. They will use government power to protect the Koran. This is saying to all employees in NJ, don't mess with Islam, its special. If you don't like it leave, we'll find mindless drones to replace you who agree and then we'll extend even more protections.

This only stops when the government is restrained from the very act you propose it be allowed to do. You may not like the government employees having special privileges as you see them, but you chose to work in the private sector. You chose to give up those special privileges. Forcing the millions of government employees to live in fear of government oppression so you can equalize the playing field seems a bit harsh.

And the core of my argument is that there is a distinct moral difference between government-as-government and government-as-employer. Government-as-employer should be able to abide by the same rules as any other employer, and that includes termination for any reason or no reason.

 

[Fletch]

In this instance, the NJ employee was fired because of a value-based evaluation of his off-duty actions. The NJ Transit authority looked at the situation and said, "we think his off-duty actions are in violation of what we value." The problem is that what the NJ Transit authority has said is, that the government believes expressions of religious freedom are not acceptable. Thus, if you do them, you will lose your job.

I will certainly agree that the NJ Transit folks made a mistake; they erred in connecting it to his Koran-burning. They should have just said "you're fired" and refused to give a reason beyond "your services are no longer required".

This only stops when the government is restrained from the very act you propose it be allowed to do. You may not like the government employees having special privileges as you see them, but you chose to work in the private sector. You chose to give up those special privileges. Forcing the millions of government employees to live in fear of government oppression so you can equalize the playing field seems a bit harsh.

It's no harsher than being forced -- at gunpoint if necessary -- to pay their salaries, which private sector employees are forced to do.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I think your suggesting here is little more than encouraging the government to hide its biases and values. I don't really want my government interacting with its employees or customers based on secret agendas and hidden value systems. The opportunity for abuse is too great.

I will certainly agree that the NJ Transit folks made a mistake; they erred in connecting it to his Koran-burning. They should have just said "you're fired" and refused to give a reason beyond "your services are no longer required".

 

[Fletch]

I think your suggesting here is little more than encouraging the government to hide its biases and values. I don't really want my government interacting with its employees or customers based on secret agendas and hidden value systems. The opportunity for abuse is too great.

Ah, now we come to the essential point of disagreement. I don't really want "my" government interacting with employees or customers based on anything other than mutually voluntary association. The opportunity for abuse is too great.

 

[ATOMonkey]

No victim no crime.

The only way the argument that firing the guy makes him a "victim", holds water, would be if he was precluded from ever having another job.

Obviously this is the not the case.

Being fired from your job, government or otherwise, does not make you a victim.