s*******n
发帖数: 10426 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 USANews 讨论区 】
发信人: swordsman (撸迅), 信区: USANews
标 题: 公司开除参加纳粹集会的员工是违法的！！！！
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Aug 15 14:52:17 2017, 美东)
现在很多人在推特上人肉参加VA纳粹集会的人，然后把通知对方的公司，让公司开除参
加纳粹集会的人。
但是，公司开除参加VA纳粹集会的员工是违反很多州的法律的，比如加州法律规定公司
不能开除或惩罚off-duty时参加合法政治活动的雇员，也不能指定相关的规则限制员工
参加工作外的政治活动，无论这个活动是新纳粹还是黑命贵。
Dear Littler: Can A Boss Fire Someone for Off-Duty Political Activities?
BY ZOE ARGENTO ON JANUARY 20, 2017 PRINT DOWNLOAD PDF
Dear Littler: I saw one of my employees on the local news the other night
participating in a political rally over the weekend. We try to maintain a
tension-free workplace. Can I discipline him for this conduct? Can I at
least institute a policy prohibiting this kind of behavior going forward?
–
Concerned Boss in Sacramento
Dear Concerned Boss,
Although you pose simple questions, the issues they raise are surprisingly
complicated. Before discussing some of the legal ramifications, it’s worth
noting that your concerns may become more common in the current political
and social climate. Tensions remain high following the contentious 2016
election cycle.1 Many Americans appear motivated to engage in ongoing
political advocacy or other activism, both in opposition to and in support
of potential changes associated with the incoming administration.
While you do not indicate what type of rally your employee attended, that
may not make much difference. Whether your employee leads a neo-Nazi group,
marches with Black Lives Matter, volunteers at Planned Parenthood, or
protests in the Women’s March on January 21, the analysis would be largely
the same.
With that in mind, let’s turn to your questions. You suggest two responses
to the employee’s behavior: adverse action against the individual and
implementation of a policy banning such conduct in the future. The risks
associated with these actions depend, among other things, on the employee’s
location, the legality of his conduct, the employee’s contract,2 the
nature of your business, and the characteristics of the individual.
State Law Protections for Lawful Off-Duty Conduct
State laws in several jurisdictions, including California, prohibit
employers from taking adverse action against employees because of legal
activities off-the-clock. For example, at least half of the states and the
District of Columbia prohibit discrimination against employees who use
tobacco or other lawful products outside work hours.3 Two states, Indiana
and North Dakota, preclude employers from making employment decisions based
on whether an applicant or employee owns firearms.4 And at least two
jurisdictions, Delaware and the District of Columbia, protect employees not
only on the basis of their sex or pregnancy, but also on the basis of their
reproductive health decisions. In these locations, it is unlawful for an
employer to make employment decisions based on an employee’s use of
contraception or planned or intended initiation or termination of a
pregnancy.5
More relevant to your inquiry are state laws that prohibit employers from
taking adverse action against employees because of their off-duty lawful
political activities. In California, employers may not coerce employees,
discriminate or retaliate against them, or take any adverse action because
they have engaged in political activity.6 Similar prohibitions exist in
other states, including Colorado, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina, and
Utah. Connecticut actually extends First Amendment protection of free speech
to the employees of private employers.7 Some of these laws provide
exceptions for public or religious employers or for off-duty employee
conduct that creates a material conflict with respect to the employer’s
business interests.8 Under such laws, and absent some exception, the
proposed termination or demotion of this employee because of his lawful, off
-the-clock political activity would be illegal.9
Some states also explicitly ban the type of policy you are considering. At
least three states—California, Louisiana, and Colorado—prohibit employers
from adopting any policy, rule or regulation that forbids or prevents
employees from engaging or participating in politics or from running for
office.10
Labor Law Protections for Political Speech
Beyond potential state-law complications, federal law may also affect your
decision. Indeed, both of your suggested responses to the employee’s
behavior could run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Section 7 of the NLRA—which applies to both unionized and non-unionized non
-supervisory employees in the private sector—provides that “[e]mployees
shall have the right . . . to engage in . . . concerted activities for the
purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection.”11 The U.S. Supreme Court has
interpreted this provision to mean that employees may organize as a group to
“improve their lot” outside the employer-employee relationship.12
Employees’ participation in political advocacy would therefore be protected
if it relates to labor or working conditions. Such advocacy can include
contacting legislators, testifying before agencies or joining protests and
demonstrations. If the means used are not illegal, an employer would
generally be barred from retaliating against employees who participate in
these political activities outside the workplace.13
Depending on the nature of the activities your employee engaged in and his
role in your organization, it may violate the NLRA to penalize him. If the
employee participated in a rally concerning sick leave, minimum wage, or
immigration reform, for example, that conduct would likely be protected.14
Similarly, workplace rules or policies that dissuade non-supervisory
employees from exercising their rights to advance their “mutual aid or
protection” can violate Section 7.15 The National Labor Relations Board
takes the position that just having such a rule, even if it isn’t enforced,
is illegal because it could have a chilling effect on employees’ exercise
of their rights. Consequently, your proposal to broadly ban off-duty
political or other advocacy would be problematic under federal law even in
states that do not prohibit such policies.
As a practical matter, your decision to terminate or discipline an employee
should be based on an objective assessment of both the individual’s job
performance and your business needs. If the employee is otherwise a solid
performer, and if his behavior does not interfere with the operation of your
business, an adverse employment decision may be difficult to explain,
undermine morale in your workforce, and, on balance, have more negative than
positive results.
In sum, with so many variables at work, there are no simple answers to your
questions. As frustrating as an employee’s political conduct or opinions
might be, employers should proceed with caution before penalizing employees
at work for their lawful, off-duty conduct.
https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/dear-littler-can-boss-
fire-someone-duty-political-activities | s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 2 法律对纳税人养活的公务员有效，对私营公司几乎没有约束力。公司炒业余搞政治活动
的自古有之，如果你是共产党公司基本直接开除，除非你参加了工会，或者你的合同有
特别规定，不然你就没有保护。就算有些州规定了不许以业余参加KKK为由开除员工，
公司依然可以以KKK影响生意为由开除。 | h**c
发帖数: 1979 | 3 James damore都被开了，开除个纳粹怎么了 | r*****9
发帖数: 2080 | 4 彰显antifa做蒙面暴徒的优越性
：【 以下文字转载自 USANews 讨论区 】
：发信人: swordsman (撸迅), 信区: USANews | s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 5 KKK才是专业蒙面，百多年历史了，前两年还有Anonymous黑客要公布这些傻逼的身份把
一些有头脸的KKK吓得够呛。
这次出来没蒙脸真的是以为变天了，结果全被认出来了。
【在 r*****9 的大作中提到】
: 彰显antifa做蒙面暴徒的优越性
:
: ：【 以下文字转载自 USANews 讨论区 】
: ：发信人: swordsman (撸迅), 信区: USANews
| q*******u
发帖数: 3435 | | r*****9
发帖数: 2080 | 7 我老不care那么久的历史，我只知道这几年蒙面游行的基本都是antifa这类极左，而且
不少是拿钱游行。
：KKK才是专业蒙面，百多年历史了，前两年还有Anonymous黑客要公布这些傻逼的身份
把一些有头脸的KKK吓得够呛。
： | s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 8 面对武装到牙齿的右派，左派示威者有少数能使用暴力的人不可避免，但比起法西斯示
威者显然是小巫见大巫。
如果要想消除暴力，显然是取缔KKK，新纳粹，alt-right这类极端恐怖主义组织在先。
【在 r*****9 的大作中提到】
: 我老不care那么久的历史，我只知道这几年蒙面游行的基本都是antifa这类极左，而且
: 不少是拿钱游行。
:
: ：KKK才是专业蒙面，百多年历史了，前两年还有Anonymous黑客要公布这些傻逼的身份
: 把一些有头脸的KKK吓得够呛。
: ：
| T*R
发帖数: 36302 | 9 呵呵，碰到要被开除了才想到加州左逼州保护人权的好处了？ | s******7
发帖数: 1758 | | b******s
发帖数: 2919 | |
|
