Lisa, is no doubt a communist leftist, with a spoiled upbringing and a degree that when she declared it she essentially shouted out to the world:
"I don't want to work a real job and I want other people to pay for a career where I can pretend I'm a self-supporting and independent adult."
However, I do have to go to bat for her in that we once again have aging administrators, managers and leaders of this country thinking somehow they have the right to discipline or fire somebody for having political views. The reason I disagree with this is two-fold;
1. Obviously people should have the freedom of speech AND that includes being able to partake in the public debate on whatever and (unless it somehow directly affect their employers) they should not have to fear about losing their jobs or being disciplined for exercising that right.
2. Not necessarily a "disagreement" on my part, but more of a "wake up and smell the facts Jack." Older people have to realize the internet and the technological ability to put everything and anything up there is the PRIMARY MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND SOCIALIZING FOR THE NEWEST GENERATION. Disciplining or firing employees because they have something on public record that an employer may disagree with politicially is not just wrong, but it is akin to eavesdropping on a conversation you were NOT invited to.
One could perhaps draw an ironic parallel here. Just as the common "feminists are standing there asking where all the good men have gone, while the blood of the men they slew is still moist on their swords" analogy, you could also say, "retirees, AARP members and older people are standing there, asking where all the taxpayer money is to pay for their social security, nursing homes and medicare, while the blood of the careers of millions of youth they slew is still moist on their swords."
Keep throwing those hurdles up for those young people trying to start a career or land a job. Oh, and also mislead them about education and make sure they indebt themselves for a worthless degree so they're off on the wrong foot. OH! And make doubly sure to crush any innovation with the constant fear that if they rock the boat or question the status quo, they'll get fired. Because remember, "the children are the future."
13 comments:
So if my costs as a business owner go up because of Obamacare, I can't go through the parking lot and fire those with Obama stickers on their cars?
I mostly agree with what you're saying. If it were a private company or even a publicly-traded company, I would have a big issue with her getting fired. But as long as NPR is receiving government funding (which it shouldn't), I think their folks (and all others receiving government funding) need to be very mindful the stance they are endorsing -- knowingly or unknowingly.
The whole point of firing her was NPR's contention that expressing political views did, in fact, affect them. Frankly I think every journalist should be fired on these grounds, but hey, just because she was singled out doesn't mean she's not a criminal any more than when the cops pull over just one car that's speeding and let the rest go.
I'm going to have to be a contrarian on this one. Private businesses should have the right to fire anyone at any time for any reason or no reason at all, in accord with the terms of the employment contract. It's a simple freedom of association issue; the government should not be able to tell me who I must or must not continue to pay a salary to.
No one is owed a job. Anyone who thinks their employer shouldn't be able to fire them because of activity outside of the workplace can negotiate that into their contract.
What an excellent post, Captain! However, we need to clarify a few things.
Many of the old farts are fully aware of the computer and its capabilities. This is not an computer/tech issue; it is an ethics issue. My elderly parents are all over the computer and most of their friends are too.
Many of the Boomers pontificate, orate and bloviate about free speech. The only ones WORSE are us Gen X types...but miss the crucial point of it.
Yes, you HAVE freedom of speech and assembly; but you also have RESPONSIBILITY for your words and actions - and our media, our youth and our gubbermint has forgotten that. I consider myself Gen X. If you publicly endorse, support and espouse causes and politics that run counter to my interests, I won't hire you either. If I have a job to fill and the guy that pooped on the police car on Wall Street applied for it - he would get a boot up his ass for his troubles. If a fine fella like YOU applied for it - he would be hired on the spot! Bloggers complain about being black listed for their views but they shouldn't. Take responsibility for them and be proud of them because they can HELP you too. I would hire you and Grerp and half a dozen others of your motley crew based on their blogs alone - they would fit into any team I have and could lead them if required.
The elderly boomers are entirely correct about some things, Captain. If you can't back up and answer for what you say - then don't say it publicly and keep it to yourself.
"Private businesses should have the right to fire anyone at any time for any reason or no reason at all, in accord with the terms of the employment contract. "
Agreed, but if you do so for any number to silly reasons like " Susy expressed a stupid opinion in writing 6 years ago/in college/ etc..." then the employer is the greater fool.
It used to be that those unfortunate opinions would get buried in college newspaper archives, backs of year books, and where-ever and be basically un-findable, now the internet never forgets and lets any idiot with google find it
It's kind of the like sex offender registries, which have seriousl numbers of " arrested for rape" , which sounds awful until your realize the 40 yo did that when he was 18 and his girlfriend was 16 and it was consensual in every respect but, GF was policeman's daughter and he very much did not approve.
Back in the day that sort of thing would be lost in archives and would basically never haunt you, now? Millstone around neck, for life, unless people care to know the facts.
Ya think any school board would hire you as a teacher, despite? Dream on.
Of two minds on this one.
First, if I was a hiring manager, not a single person participating in Occupy anything would ever work for me. Why? Their participation in this demonstrates a level of immaturity that I would not want to have in my organization. (OK, maybe 5-10 years from now, I may be a bit more forgiving.)
Second, if I had an employee, that was a hard worker, and they chose, on their own time, to participate in protests, I would not take any action against them.
It is not the participation in the protest that is the problem, it is the maturity and mental mindset of Occupy ______ that I consider a firing offense.
Had Lisa Simeone chosen to participate in a woman's rights movement, or a save the whales movement, or a recycle the world movement, I would have zero problem with it. But, she chose to participate in a protest that is as anti business as I have ever seen. And, that demonstrates that I would be unable to trust her to promote my business and keep profits coming in.
Of course, she worked for NPR. I am actually kind of surprised they did not promote her.
Naturally there is a fine line between what is speech and what is harmful to your business. But for example, going to a protest is one thing, deification on a cop car is a crime. That's not freedom of speech.
Another aspect everybody here has to consider is how little employers discriminate against "leftist" freedom of speech because it's politically acceptable. Government employers don't mind, PC HR departments don't mind, but if you advocate a right wing view, HOOOOO BOY! That is the WRONG opinion to have!
"the internet and the technological ability to put everything and anything up there is the PRIMARY MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND SOCIALIZING FOR THE NEWEST GENERATION"..."but it is akin to eavesdropping on a conversation you were NOT invited to."
But thats the thing. By putting it out there for everyone to see, they ARE inviting everyone to the conversation.
Of course, You could post this kind of thing semi anonymously and never have it bite you. ;)
There are two things going on that screwed Simeone:
1. After the Juan Williams firing NPR had their back to a wall. If expressing strong right-wing opinion was a firing offense but left-wing wasn't they'd have a very public double standard. Meaning Williams might have a nasty lawsuit waiting.
2. NPR, in fact the whole CPB, has been in GOP sights for over a decade. Funding barely came out of the House this year and mainly did because it was going to be added in the Senate. NPR is seeing a strong possibility of a full GOP Congress and WH next year. If the double standard was that public maintaining gov't funding would have been nigh impossible (as it is it won't be easy).
No company is going to retain an employee actively trying to stop sales, which is in effect what Simeone was doing.
Herb - I agree.
NPR with the Juan Williams firing had painted themselves into a corner. Firing Juan and not firing the other, not only expose NPR to a lawsuit, it would communicate a fact that we already know (left-wing bias) and would add more fuel to the Federal funding opposition's fire.
Also note that NPR has to still maintain the pretension that they as a news media must be objective - going out to be a spokesperson for a political movement blows that objectivity away.
For examploe, if I criticized my employer via a blog, I could be fired - even if I posted factual matter. And if I posted something as fact that I knew wasn't true, I could get sued by them.
As someone previously posted, you do have freedom of speech, but that does not mean you are free from responsibility for what you said.
Let me add though that the so called freedom of speech only blocks the GOVERNMENT and only the government, from censoring your speech.
Tried to leave a comment. Can't. Here's the message I keep getting: "Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters" -- even though my message is less than that -- 3,394 characters.
If you're interested, write me at lsimeone@hotmail.com and I'll send it to you. I've saved it as a Word doc.
1 Sept 2013
Late to the party, but hope I can clear up a few misunderstandings.
1. Contention that I’m "no doubt a communist leftist, with a spoiled upbringing and a degree that when she declared it she essentially shouted out to the world: 'I don't want to work a real job and I want other people to pay for a career where I can pretend I'm a self-supporting and independent adult'":
I'm a leftist, insofar as the false dichotomy of left/right even means anything anymore (though I think you'd find some of my opinions, such as my opposition to political correctness, considered traditionally rightwing). Regardless, the communist thing is idiotic, but I understand you're employing hyperbole to make a point. So noted.
2. Upbringing: I come from a blue-collar family and have been working since I was 16. Have busted my ass in various jobs. Helped put myself through college, paid off my student loans completely & in the time allotted; nobody had to chase after me. So I don't think I need guidance from captains (or even lieutenants) of capitalism on how to make a living.
3. I was not an employee of NPR when all this happened. I received no money from NPR. In addition, I wasn't a news reporter. I was (and still am) hosting a show on opera – not produced by NPR - and was (and still am) hosting a show on symphonic music – also not produced by NPR. I also write about fashion, beauty, design, art, architecture, etc. for a magazine – also nothing to do with NPR. Please show me the conflict of interest in being involved in a social justice movement –- or being involved in politics at all, given that I've been politically active all my life and have never hidden this –- and working in these capacities.
Why is it okay for other people, people who actually work for NPR as news reporters, to espouse political positions with no public outcry? Or to accept speaking fees - often enormous - from industries they then purport to report on? People such as Scott Simon, Mara Liasson, Cokie Roberts, etc.? Simon was banging the war drums before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Liasson flacks for Fox. Roberts (and other NPR employees) accept huge speaking fees from corporate America.
Hypocrisy much?
4. Sounds like you haven't read my brief public statement on this whole kerfuffle. I direct you to the HuffPo article.
5. I think you're right about Juan Williams. Besides the fact that I think NPR was wrong to fire him - and he did work for NPR, unlike me - I think I was payback for Juan Williams. For NPR's dunderheaded decision on him. I have said this publicly, repeatedly, including in a talk I gave in Baltimore last year. Video available on YouTube and at my blog, ABombazine.
6. I didn't hurt anybody's bottom line or “image” or “reputation.” It's bullshit to claim I did. Neither NPR nor Soundprint lost a damn thing by having my voice and 30 years of experience affiliated with public radio. This isn't about businesses losing anything. This is about scoring political points. NPR used me to score cheap political points. Yet it still won’t work: NPR will always, always be accused of being leftwing – which is laughable, considering how corporate, mainstream, and averse to rocking the boat they are – and nothing they do or say will ever quell that criticism. They could turn into Fox News overnight, and they would still be accused of being “leftwing.” So good luck to them on that front.
I think Jay Rosen of PressThink put it best: "NPR's answer to being bullied on the playground is to bring more lunch money."
Finally, I think I now officially qualify as being “an old fart.” I’m 56. I’m eligible for AARP (and would join it if I thought it did a damn thing, which I don’t.) I use “the technology.” All the time. I write under my own name. I put my money where my mouth is. Would that other people who so easily pontificate about right and wrong do the same.
Post a Comment