The similarity is in your mind.

Sterling exhibited repugnant behavior and discriminatory comments.

Eich exhibited no repugnant behavior or said any discriminatory comments.

I had asked for evidence or further information about things that he may have said. None was found be me or anyone on Redscape. Eich's only "crime" was a vote that dared disagree with those on the left. To fire someone for having an alternative political view is troublesome. To fire someone for actions such as Sterling's is fine, and should have occurred.

It is nice to see that you admit that Eich was forced out. That is a step for you, RickyP. At first you were saying that he resigned on his own volition. HAPPY GRADUATION DAY!

bbauska

The similarity is in your mind.

The similarity is in what happened.
Stakeholders in the NBA, players and sponsors forced the NBA commissioner to act .
Similarily stakeholders in Mozilla, through pressure on management forced Eich to resign.

Sterling exhibited repugnant behavior and discriminatory comments.
Eich exhibited no repugnant behavior or said any discriminatory comments.

In your mind, this may be so...
However in the minds and hearts of the stakeholders of Mozilla Eich was guilty of behavior that they felt was repugnant. In fact, they may have a point that Eich actually acted to deny people of equal rights in his political activities whereas Stiirling just said repugnant things. (I know that Stirling has, in the past, also done some things that were racist, but most people were only aware of the tapes).

rickyp wrote:bbauska

The similarity is in your mind.

The similarity is in what happened.
Stakeholders in the NBA, players and sponsors forced the NBA commissioner to act .
Similarily stakeholders in Mozilla, through pressure on management forced Eich to resign.

Sterling exhibited repugnant behavior and discriminatory comments.
Eich exhibited no repugnant behavior or said any discriminatory comments.

In your mind, this may be so...
However in the minds and hearts of the stakeholders of Mozilla Eich was guilty of behavior that they felt was repugnant. In fact, they may have a point that Eich actually acted to deny people of equal rights in his political activities whereas Stiirling just said repugnant things. (I know that Stirling has, in the past, also done some things that were racist, but most people were only aware of the tapes).

Please check your mind, my friend. You still have no evidence other than he had the audacity to vote in a way that some did not like. He discriminated against no person. He made no discriminatory statement against any group or person.

If people can be fired for a vote, can an owner of a business fire employees for voting to be unionized? I am willing to say that Sterling should have been fired. Are you willing to say that people can be fired for a vote?

BTW, a correction:
His name is Sterling, not Stirling, not Stiirling

Eich did not just 'vote'. He funded a campaign. If you are going to correct ricky on basic facts, it looks better if you don't make them yourself.

bbauska

He discriminated against no person. He made no discriminatory statement against any group or person

.

He helped fund a campaign that was specifically targeted against gays and lesbians...
That may not be discriminatory in your view.
However the people who matter, the stakeholders and employees of Mozilla see his act as discriminatory. And they are the ones who demanded that he resign or be fired....
The employees of the NBA (The players) acted in the same manner as the Mozilla stakeholders when they heard Sterling's comments on tape. They were prepared to walk off the court in order to forfe the NBA to act.
That

you

do not see outlawing gay marriage as discriminatory isn't the issue. The people who matter did.
If you think it was okay for the NBA players to demand Sterling be banned and forced out of ownership (yet to happen) seems that you approve of the ability of employees, shareholders, employers and stakeholders to secure the firing of someone for their moral actions. (speech or activity or political activity)
Just so long as you agree with their view of the action.

danivon wrote:Eich did not just 'vote'. He funded a campaign. If you are going to correct ricky on basic facts, it looks better if you don't make them yourself.

Noted. He gave funds to a campaign. He did not fund the campaign. ($1000)

No answer on firing of pro-union employees? How about teachers who do not teach what the local school board want for curriculum?

Does the business world have the right to fire a person for opinion or non-illegal actions committed that are disagreed with by some. I do think that. I want that model equally applied by those on the left, and not be hypocritical...

bbauska

No answer on firing of pro-union employees

?
answer

Probably the biggest question on everyone’s mind when they look in to forming a union at their workplace is “Can I Be Fired?” The fact is, you have a federally protected right in America guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act to join or support a union and to engage in collective bargaining. Under this Act workers have the right to:
* Attend meetings to discuss joining a union.
* Read, distribute and discuss union literature as long as it’s done in non-work areas during non-work times, such as breaks or lunch hours.
* Sign a card asking your employer to recognize and bargain with the union.
* Sign petitions or file grievances related to wages, hours, working conditions, or other job issues.
* Ask other employees to support the union, to sign union cards or petitions or to file grievances.

http://www.iam933.org/index.php?option= ... Itemid=100

How about teachers who do not teach what the local school board want for curriculum?

They have failed to meet the requirements of their job.
This isn't an issue of discrimination, its an issue of nonperformance.
Now, if the curriculum contains hokum like teaching creationism as fact, or teaching that climate change science is a fraud .... perhaps the teacher may revolt..... And then you would have a stakeholder or stakeholders taking a principled stand while making the issue public.
Alternatively if the teacher insists that one of the two above be part of the curriculum when the board insists it must not .... then principled stand could also be taken.
If the school board has to defend its curriculum choices publicly, in the face of a public debate about whats correct curriculum this might ensure. If it was confirmed after much public debate that they were right in their curriculum choice then the teacher would have been correctly dismissed. If, on the other hand the curriculum was proven to be defiicient and changed .... the teacher would have a case for reinstatement and compensation..

Does the business world have the right to fire a person for opinion or non-illegal actions committed that are disagreed with by some. I do think that. I want that model equally applied by those on the left, and not be hypocritica[

[/quote][/quote]
I abhor hypocrisy as well....
However, i fail to see how you have demonstrated any in your examples.
Either you have identified issues of job performance or issues where people are specifically protected constitutionally.

And you haven't accepted the similarities between the actions of NBA players and the Mozilla stakeholders ... Or have you?

I agree with you position on the teacher issue. If the school board wants to teach the myth of climate change/global warming, so be it. It is the responsibility of the public that elects the school board to have the people on the board that reflect the views to the school district.

I do not agree with the view of the union support. It is the mandate of law that is needed to have a person protected for their view. To me that is hypocrisy to have a person make their opinions be known and have them protected where others opinions are not. If the Union position is so supported by societal pressure, then it should stand w/o the mandate of law.

NBA? Yes, it is handled correctly by the players et. al.
Mozilla? Yes it is being handled correctly as long as the standards are applied across the board.

Are we having a moment of agreement?

bbauska

To me that is hypocrisy to have a person make their opinions be known and have them protected where others opinions are not. If the Union position is so supported by societal pressure, then it should stand w/o the mandate of law.

Sometimes societal pressure is adverse in some regions or specific areas and is opposite to the general goals of society.
Societal pressure in the deep south was all for segregation at one time. Laws eliminated it, when societal pressure in the region could not....

And laws that protect fiiring for reasons of union activity has nothing to do with societal pressure. Its about the ability for owners to wield an economic veto over individuals attempting to exercise their rights as free citizens. Its about protecting free speech, and activity.

bbauska

It is the responsibility of the public that elects the school board to have the people on the board that reflect the views to the school district.

It should also be a mandate that a minimum standard be met that allows students to move from one school district to another with out being handicapped by a local curriculum which fails to provide them with the tools and knowledge they need to compete in the world at large.
One of these, should be, at a minimum, an understanding of the scientific process and the underpinnings of scientific knowledge . That would include the teaching of evolution through the natural selection of species and the teaching of the natural levers affecting the warming of the global climate.
A political process that elects than empowers ordinary, ill equipped citizens, to evaluate a curriculum specifics is ill designed. You don't have ordinary people examining what curriculum is appropriate for a medical school. Only a qualified person makes that decision.
I don't think this should differ when considering the curriculum and techniques that should be employed in an elementary school or a high school.
So though you and i may agree about the role of the school board, i suspect we disagree about how that board goes about its tasks, and what kind of influence ordinary citizens should have on a school curriculum.

See, now there you go again... Putting your own restrictions on what others opinions are, but wanting yours to have free reign. This is the hypocrisy that I am speaking of.

If a business does not want to have a unionized workforce, and the majority of the town/county does want it, then the business will have to change it's desires or have no employees. If unions are so wonderful then there should be little difficulty in the position being so prevalent.

You talk of free speech and activity, but support Eich being forced out for his free speech and activity. Do you see the dichotomy between the two cases?

Re: Schools
If the local school board does not want minimum standards, then society will get a new school board. If it is such a great idea the people will force the position upon the governing body to get what they want. Of course your Medical school strawman does not apply, as it is not public schools. This is for public schools only.

If a private (yes, this includes Med Schools and other advanced learning) those standards are based upon a Board of Regents. If the standards do not meet societal needs, then they school's enrollment will suffer. Now when a student leaves medical school and goes for certification, that is a government issue, and I am all for that. If the school cannot produce quality candidates because of a poor curriculum, that is not the government's fault. It is the schools, and that would be dealt with through the marketplace.

bbauska

If a business does not want to have a unionized workforce, and the majority of the town/county does want it, then the business will have to change it's desires or have no employees. If unions are so wonderful then there should be little difficulty in the position being so prevalent.

How do you actually know if the work force wants a union or not, if everyone who wants to organize a vote is fired?
That use of economic power to control how a person associates is a contravention of a persons constitutional right to freely associate. And the fact its been used by employers as a weapon so often is why the laws were established ....

By the way, the problems with unions stems entirely from the oppositional nature of the relationship. Union relationships in Germany, for instance, are much more collaborative and lead to the creation of productivity and strike free, interruption free, work places. But be that as it may, unionization was primarily responsible for much of the growth in working class and middle class wages in the US. A power that produced the periods of lowest income inequality in the US, and healthy expansive economic times.

You talk of free speech and activity, but support Eich being forced out for his free speech and activity. Do you see the dichotomy between the two cases

I believe in free speech. I just don't think there is such a thing as consequence free - free speech.
Both Eich and Sterling are free to say or do any stupid thing they want. But if their business associate feel it has negative consequences for their business... Eich and Sterling shouldn't complain too much about the consequences.

I think you are fine with Sterling suffering consequences for his racism. But shocked to find Eich facing consequences for his support of discrimination against Gays and Lesbians.
As I've said before, all this indicates is that society has evolved to where a majority of people now accept that complete equality for homosexuals includes equality in marriage law. And when society, or in the case of Mozilla its stakeholders, hold this view Eich has suffered the consequences for his unpopular political activity and associations.
Its a long way from the fifties and sixties when sex between two men might have resulted in criminal charges, and where homosexuals and lesbians faced open discrimination in the work place and society at large.... Like any minority they eventually want full equal treatment and use their freedom of speech and association to ensure that those who oppose full equality suffer consequences . Because that's how discrimination is eliminated... by ensuring their are consequences for those who discriminate,
So that makes NBA players and Mozilla stakeholders not just similar but the same. Intolerant of intolerance however it is couched.

bbauska

If the school cannot produce quality candidates because of a poor curriculum, that is not the government's fault. It is the schools, and that would be dealt with through the marketplace.

In the case of public schools ...they are government. (The word public should be a clue)

The point is, that industry, and the business world, and society at large need people who are equipped for the work space. And they want a properly educated work force available to meet their needs as employers. That's why public education evolved in the first place..

If schools get it wrong, US industry has to find talent somewhere (immigration) or move parts of their business elsewhere.

First off, we are not in Germany.

Secondly, have a vote. I am ok with that. Just force everyone who votes for it to resign.

After all, there are no consequence free speech cases.

Lastly, I know that public school is part of government. LOCAL GOVERNMENT! That is why I said the school board is elected.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Eich did not just 'vote'. He funded a campaign. If you are going to correct ricky on basic facts, it looks better if you don't make them yourself.

Noted. He gave funds to a campaign. He did not fund the campaign. ($1000)

Umm, he did fund the campaign, just not fully.