Ethically and for the person's personal and social development and for the person's biological well-being (food, shelter) (and extending that, everyone's), I agree with you that a system that approaches the free market (no developed nation has a free market entirely because we like to keep our ppl alive) in a some players have more weight (capitalist) context is not best for humans, and I get why you're sad and incensed. you're having foresight about the human condition and psychology and what would be best is not where we're at.
we can't have right to work (right to fire) laws and expect this not to happen. period. we have rules that preferentially empower the wealthiest (the people with capital) when it comes to hiring and firing.
I'm not sure ppl realize what the first amendment in the U.S. does (I'm not saying you don't, squark). The U.S. free speech laws allow us protection from THE GOVERNMENT dissappearing us if we speak freely. THEY ALLOW US TO SAY A LOT BUT NOT EVERYTHING WITHOUT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES. They do not afford us imperviousness to vocational repercussions, ESPECIALLY in right-to-work states.
We don't live in North Korea, and we can't expect the government to force a business owner (someone with capital) to hire or fire or keep employed anyone the business owner doesn't want to unless there's a great reason.
There are legal laws that protect people in some situations from being improperly fired from a job.
"To be wrongfully terminated is to be fired for an illegal reason, which may involve violation of federal anti-discrimination laws or a contractual breach. ... For instance, an employee cannot be fired on the basis of her race, gender, ethnic background, religion, or disability." employment.findlaw.com
your employee's race doesn't reflect negatively on your business. their actions do.
Ethically and for the person's personal and social development and for the person's biological well-being (food, shelter) (and extending that, everyone's), I agree with you that a system that approaches the free market (no developed nation has a free market entirely because we like to keep our ppl alive) in a some players have more weight (capitalist) context is not best for humans, and I get why you're sad and incensed. you're having foresight about the human condition and psychology and what would be best is not where we're at.
"Generally, private employers are free to regulate the speech of their employees and may even fire employees for sharing their thoughts on social media. ... Public sector employers, on the other hand, are subject to the First Amendment.Jun 25, 2020" thatcherlaw.com
if you are a libertarian capitalist by ideology and employ a social democratist who is neither pro- nor anti-capitalism, you might be concerned that their social media expressed views are going to have repercussions in the market.
I do think if the person doesn't state their place of work on their social media, that is a pretty good legal argument that the employer's business is SAFER if not totally safe from market shifts based on the employee's posts on social media. Again, we give the capital-carrying (richer) person in a capitalist society more power when it comes to food and shelter. We make decisions in democracy valuing constitutional republics, so we don't have to stay stuck this way, and I look forward to our Star Trek future.
I'm also very grateful that you voice dissent about the practices of someone being fired over their beliefs. It's in conflict with our freedom for the employer laws, but it brings up a really important point that capitalism as we currently run it isn't working well for us as humans with very urgent needs to feed ourselves and also the desire to express ourselves on social media.



Reply With Quote