danivon wrote:

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.

That was exactly the delineation I made.

It's a distinction without a difference. He did more than vote (and if all he'd done is vote, no-one would know). He made a donation which was in the public domain. The quantitative side of it is not really the point, it is the qualititative analysis.

By the way, what laws did Sterling break that led to his being forced out of his ownership?

danivon wrote:It's a distinction without a difference. He did more than vote (and if all he'd done is vote, no-one would know). He made a donation which was in the public domain. The quantitative side of it is not really the point, it is the qualititative analysis.

By the way, what laws did Sterling break that led to his being forced out of his ownership?

No law, just violated the NBA conduct rules.

bbauska wrote:No law, just violated the NBA conduct rules.

I've seen that he's been banned from ownership, and there has been mention of rules, but what specific rule is it?

Was it probably not more likely that the 'disrepute' side of it was prompted by the boycotts?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:No law, just violated the NBA conduct rules.

I've seen that he's been banned from ownership, and there has been mention of rules, but what specific rule is it?

Was it probably not more likely that the 'disrepute' side of it was prompted by the boycotts?

Not having seen the contract, I can't do more than repeat what Stephen A Smith of ESPN said.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/ne ... z30mjElQnV

Silver has broad authority under the NBA's constitution and bylaws to suspend and fine an owner for conduct detrimental to the NBA. According to Sliver, Sterling admitted it was his voice on the recording in which he made racist remarks. Even if the recording was unlawfully created under California law -- the recording would likely be unlawful if the conversation was confidential and Sterling didn't give consent -- Silver is authorized to punish Sterling based on the recording's impact on the league. It is safe to say that Sterling's comments, which elicited the rebuke of President Barack Obama, have deeply harmed the NBA and its relationship with players, sponsors and fans. Sterling seems to lack a viable argument that his conduct was not seriously detrimental to the NBA.
Sterling is also disadvantaged in challenging the suspension and fine because of how a court would treat such a challenge. A court would review Silver's decision under the deferential "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review. This standard would essentially require Sterling prove that the NBA -- and specifically Silver, acting as the NBA's ultimate arbiter -- failed to follow its own rules in how it investigated Sterling and punished him. For instance, if the NBA failed to authenticate the recording, concealed evidence or not requested a meeting with Sterling, Sterling might have sufficient grounds. Silver's remarks during the press conference, however, suggest all relevant rules and policies were followed. Absent Sterling proving there was a procedural defect of serious importance, Sterling likely has no viable appeal to either the fine or suspension.

It takes a 3/4 vote of league governors (owners) to force a sale of a franchise .

Now if its okay with you, BBauska for Sterling to go ... why not Eich?
After all, the stakeholders of Mozilla are the same as the players, mangers, other owners and sponsors of the NBA. They were acting in their interests to protect their brand just as the NBA stakeholders are...

RickyP, please try to understand. I will say it again.

I consider Eich donating money to or even voting for Prop 8 to be a non-discriminating action. You do not agree, I get it.

Sterling committed a discriminatory act. We agree on that, no problem.
Eich did not perform a discriminatory act. Could Eich have been convicted of discrimination in a court? I doubt it. Then again half of CA would be convicted by your standard.

I am ok with Eich being forced out by his employers. They have that right. I just want that right employed across the board.

If there is an employer that found out an employee donated money to Planned Parenthood, should that employer terminate that employee for their donation?

If in doing so they bring their employe into disrepute, perhaps.

Of course a random employee has a lot less responsibility than a CEO/franchise holder, and so.would have less scope to cause such problems from a donation.

I consider Eich donating money to or even voting for Prop 8 to be a non-discriminating action. You do not agree, I get it.

Its not that I consider Eiich to be propogating discrimination, its that Mozillas stakeholders beleive his actions bring Mozilla into disrepute. Disrepute because his actions contravene Mozilla's written statement of values.
A note though. Prop 8 was all about discriminating between homosexuals and heterosexuals. It was about treating them entirely differently when it comes to marriage.
That's a fact.
Whats in dispute, in the referendum and in the courts, is whether the state was going to encode the discrimination into law. In other words, make the discrimination legally acceptable.

Sterling committed a discriminatory act. We agree on that, no problem.

Actually all he did, at least in the released tapes, was use hateful language.

Eich did not perform a discriminatory act

.
See above. He was working to support the creation of law that made discrimination legally acceptable.

Could Eich have been convicted of discrimination in a court? I doubt it. Then again half of CA would be convicted by your standard

.

I am ok with Eich being forced out by his employers. They have that right. I just want that right employed across the board.

60 years ago someone running campaigns to support laws banning interracial marriage would have acceptable. And legal.
Time change. Attitudes change. Morality changes... Acceptance of gays and lesbians has now reached a point in the US, where public opposition to marriage equality has consequences. the same way that public displays of racism do ... Well, not right across the nation, but certainly in some parts ...

If there is an employer that found out an employee donated money to Planned Parenthood, should that employer terminate that employee for their donation

Depends on the organization I suppose. I'll bet a Catholic charity might have a problem with that .... And if employment included a code of conduct I think the employee would be on thin ice...

RickyP and Danivon,
You are both hedging. I said it is ok for the board to force Eich out for his beliefs (I think Eich was brought into disrepute for his beliefs, btw).

It does not depend on the organization. If an employee donates money to an organization that does not meet with your values, should you terminate that employee?

It is the values of the board/employer that matters in the Eich case. Does it matter elsewhere, or is this more double standard...

bbauska

(I think Eich was brought into disrepute for his beliefs, btw).

What does this mean?
After all it wasn't his beliefs that caused him grief so much as the juxtaposition of the companies code of ethics with his activities... I'm sure that most of the people who asked him to leave would also defend his political activities as a valid use of his rights .... its just that he couldn't lead a company who's code of ethics he could not live.

t does not depend on the organization. If an employee donates money to an organization that does not meet with your values, should you terminate that employee?

Generally one's private political activities shouldn't affect your employment. When you are in a leadership position, as Eich was, and charged with upholding the stated values of the corporation ---- then political activity that contradicts the stated values (in the eyes of the stake holders) ...becomes fair game for censure or expulsion.

I should have not said "depends on the organization. I think I gave the impression that I think there are many exceptions. I can think of some, not many. . Where employers who've been hired are working in a company who's business is specifically defined as an out reach of a religion or a charity or a political activity. For instance, an employee of the WWF should probably be fired if found on a safari shooting animals...

But, for example, I don't see an employee of a book store or hobby shop who's employers are opposed to access to abortion should be fired if they privately donated to Planned Parenthood... (If they used a forum at work to campaign, that would be different as well.)
Context and specifics are important.

Its also different for CEOs or executives in leadership positions... If the company has a set of standards or a code that their political activities directly contradict or oppose - they should expect consequences.

I take it Brad that your main concern is that if a conservative can be fired for his views then the same should hold true for a liberal? You used the word should with regard to the Planned Parenthood example? I'm not sure that is the right word. Could they? Unless there was a law that protected the employee for being fired for political activities, yes (this may vary by state see http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/ ... you-fired/)
Generally speaking, companies that fire good employees for reasons not relevant to their jobs do not do very well. With regard to Eich, however good he was as an executive he was hurting the company. So it made sense for the company to fire him, based solely on the basis of what was good for the company. The Planned Parenthood example has too little information to weigh whether firing that employee would be good for the company or not
It also becomes dicey for a company to fire a member of any protected class for their political views when those political views are related to their protected class membership. Mozilla can force Eich out for his donation to Proposition 8, but it would be pretty hard for a company to fire a gay employee who gave money to oppose proposition 8. I guess that is a double standard but too bad....

bbauska wrote:RickyP and Danivon,
You are both hedging. I said it is ok for the board to force Eich out for his beliefs (I think Eich was brought into disrepute for his beliefs, btw).

In neither case (Eich or Sterling) was it their 'beliefs' that was the problem. In both cases it was their actions being made public, leading to an outcry, which then affected the organisations themselves.

It does not depend on the organization. If an employee donates money to an organization that does not meet with your values, should you terminate that employee?

It is the values of the board/employer that matters in the Eich case. Does it matter elsewhere, or is this more double standard...

It was not simply the 'values', it was the impact on the organisation. If a bank clerk donates to a cause that the bank doesn't like, or that it's customers don't like, then who cares? If no-one cares, why sack them?

But if it's the CEO, and that then leads to boycotts, hitting the bottom line and risking the reputation of the bank, then there is clearly a difference there, because the CEO is more closely linked to the direction of the bank.

I think you are focusing on just two events (the expression of a belief, and the loss of job), and ignoring the facts regarding what happened in between.

For example, in Eich's case they did nothing for the two years after his donation became public. They then promoted him. and that is when the boycotts started. It was not about his donation, per se, it was about the damage to the reputation of Mozilla.

Similarly, Sterling is not a nice guy generally. But oddly the NBA did nothing about his ownership when he was being accused of discrimination in his role as landlord, even after several law suits that were about his racial discrimination, some of which were settled, but in others he at least had to pay costs.

They acted when advertisers started to boycott, and players and coaches threatened not to play matches. So, he was not thrown out of the NBA for his beliefs, or even his expression of them (let alone his carrying out discrimination). It was simply because of the fuss caused and the reputational issues leading to a hit on finances.

The issue on this thread is that you are asking (nay, demanding) that we accept your perception as the reality, and from that you are extrapolating so that you can (as so often) whine about 'double standards'.

freeman3 wrote:I guess that is a double standard but too bad....

That speaks volumes.

So much there,,,

I do not see a difference for a CEO and an employee, People need to be treated equally after all. Are you saying that hired employees should be treated differently RickyP? That sounds like discrimination on it's face!!!

Freeman,
The reason I used the word should is because it was directed at a person who I was asking for HIS opinion. He wanted to know mine, and I wanted to know know his. The law allows for firing, forcing out, et. al.

Danivon,
Are you saying that the only reason Eich was forced out was because of the public outcry? I am focusing on the two events. Those are the ones that the business has control over. I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying as well. I am saying it is OK that Eich was forced out for donating to a cause that does not match what the board has.

As for a double standard, I do consider it a double standard to think it is ok to force someone out for a position that is contrary to the employer and then make exceptions. I think it is up to the employer, and that person can make any exceptions that they want.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/community-manager-fired-after-controversial-tweets-about-embattled-nba-owner-donald-sterling/1100-6419367/

And it happens again!