Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

[whichphilosophy]

A good manager wouldn't fire someone without cause and does so without political bias.

Reducing risk to your business, workers, and customers in total is not political bias. It is an apolitical, objective decision, like not hiring someone who in an interview says he likes to kill other co-workers or is a serial killer. One objectively ought not hire a Nazi and two Nazi collaborators at a small business to prepare and serve food to a public that includes Jews, blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities. If you also managed a Jewish Community Center, you ought not hire ISIS members either who have said they want to kill all the Jews. If you work at a Muslim center as a hiring manager, you ought not hire an extremist who says he wants to kill all the Muslims. Also, you shouldn't hire someone to work in a restaurant making food for white people who says he wants to kill all white people. If you own a daycare center, you ought not hire a pedophile to work closely with the children unsupervised. If you work in a mortuary as a hiring manager, you ought not hire a necrophiliac. It is not a political bias, but simply rational decisions based on risk of various outcomes and whether you want to eliminate or mitigate those risks.

As I often say problems down the line can be prevented during the hiring process. However, there is a danger at times to fire out of bias and not real risks.

 

[laughing dog]

That is your opinion. In the USA, your opinion is not law. And it is rational to let go an employee who may potentially reduce earnings or productivity.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it can - if the quotation is completely irrelevant.

I didn't say it applied to US laws. A good manager wouldn't fire someone without cause and does so without political bias.

Firing a Nazi because a Nazi may either reduce earnings or produce is not firing someone with political bias. Really, you are simply being ridiculous.

Irrelevant is not babble. Etymology can give extra depth to the understanding of words.

Irrevelant can most certainly be babble.

 

[Copernicus]

In any case, the restaurateur claims that the employee suggested he be laid off because of the threats. The threats alone would have been sufficient reason for the employer to let him go, since his business and his other employees were made potential targets for terrorists. If the man had quit, he would not have been eligible for unemployment insurance, so it makes sense that he might have realized his job was untenable and that being laid off was preferable to voluntarily leaving.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Firing a Nazi because a Nazi may either reduce earnings or produce is not firing someone with political bias. Really, you are simply being ridiculous.

Irrelevant is not babble. Etymology can give extra depth to the understanding of words.

Irrevelant can most certainly be babble.

Firing on a maybe rather than real or reasonable risk but be based on political affiliation would be political.

If the content of something that is deemed irrelevant is babble you would be right. However the dictionary doesn't print babble.

 

[laughing dog]

Firing a Nazi because a Nazi may either reduce earnings or produce is not firing someone with political bias. Really, you are simply being ridiculous.

Irrelevant is not babble. Etymology can give extra depth to the understanding of words.

Irrevelant can most certainly be babble.

Firing on a maybe rather than real or reasonable risk but be based on political affiliation would be political.

Nope. Firing a Nazi because one has a reasonable expectation that either earnings or productivity will fall is not political.

Moreover, it is not "political". Naziism is an evil. It promotes genocide. This is not about politics. It is a farce to all it political.

If the content of something that is deemed irrelevant is babble you would be right. However the dictionary doesn't print babble.

No one said the dictionary prints babble. People observed your posts were babble because they were irrelevant.

 

[Hermit]

The threats alone would have been sufficient reason for the employer to let him go, since his business and his other employees were made potential targets for terrorists.

Would you say the same if the employee were black, the restaurant served whites only during the apartheid era and the threats came from members of the KKK?

 

[whichphilosophy]

The threats alone would have been sufficient reason for the employer to let him go, since his business and his other employees were made potential targets for terrorists.

Would you say the same if the employee were black, the restaurant served whites only during the apartheid era and the threats came from members of the KKK?

My point is the same principles are being used today.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Firing on a maybe rather than real or reasonable risk but be based on political affiliation would be political.

Nope. Firing a Nazi because one has a reasonable expectation that either earnings or productivity will fall is not political.

Moreover, it is not "political". Naziism is an evil. It promotes genocide. This is not about politics. It is a farce to all it political.

If the content of something that is deemed irrelevant is babble you would be right. However the dictionary doesn't print babble.

No one said the dictionary prints babble. People observed your posts were babble because they were irrelevant.

It's about politics. 60 years ago it was firing communists and suspected communists. Re babble I referred initially to your post 302

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. Firing a Nazi because one has a reasonable expectation that either earnings or productivity will fall is not political.

Moreover, it is not "political". Naziism is an evil. It promotes genocide. This is not about politics. It is a farce to all it political.
No one said the dictionary prints babble. People observed your posts were babble because they were irrelevant.

It's about politics.

No, it is not. It is fascinating to see someone who literally soils his/her underwear at the notion of "communists" or "Antifas" equate "politics" with those who actively advocate genocide.

Re babble I referred initially to your post 302

No need for you to provide another example of babble.

 

[whichphilosophy]

No, it is not. It is fascinating to see someone who literally soils his/her underwear at the notion of "communists" or "Antifas" equate "politics" with those who actively advocate genocide.

Re babble I referred initially to your post 302

No need for you to provide another example of babble.

There are different types of politics but flipping burgers is not advocating genocide.

 

[Malintent]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/us/nazi-sympathizer-profiled-by-the-times-loses-his-job.html

Ha ha!

I can't wait to hear all the conservatives complain that this is counts as "persecution" of white people. Aren't we attacking the free speech rights of Nazi sympathizers?

I 100% support free speech. And I'm very uncomfortable with the recent attempts to block right wingers from speaking on campuses. However, free speech has consequences. I damn sure would not want a Nazi on my team.

You say you support consequences for speech... but it seems that you make exception for the consequence of not being welcome to speak further...So are you saying that freedom of speech includes the ability to force people to listen to their unwanted speech? No freedom FROM speech?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hypothetical: You own a home and have a big family. Some of the family lives with you, some of which are minorities. One day, a Nazi and two collaborators try to move into your home with you. Do you (a) kick them off your property because they are evil Nazis who regularly irrationally create risk of harm to others, (b) let them move in because free speech, or (c) let them move in and then kick them out later when you get threatening phone calls from Antifa?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Hypothetical: You own a home and have a big family. Some of the family lives with you, some of which are minorities. One day, a Nazi and two collaborators try to move into your home with you. Do you (a) kick them off your property because they are evil Nazis who regularly irrationally create risk of harm to others, (b) let them move in because free speech, or (c) let them move in and then kick them out later when you get threatening phone calls from Antifa?

In this instance (a) is better than (b) and (c).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hypothetical: You own a home and have a big family. Some of the family lives with you, some of which are minorities. One day, a Nazi and two collaborators try to move into your home with you. Do you (a) kick them off your property because they are evil Nazis who regularly irrationally create risk of harm to others, (b) let them move in because free speech, or (c) let them move in and then kick them out later when you get threatening phone calls from Antifa?

In this instance (a) is better than (b) and (c).

Restaurants are also private property.

 

[Copernicus]

The threats alone would have been sufficient reason for the employer to let him go, since his business and his other employees were made potential targets for terrorists.

Would you say the same if the employee were black, the restaurant served whites only during the apartheid era and the threats came from members of the KKK?

And it is fair to ask the same question of you. You are that owner of the restaurant that served whites only. Hey, wait. Hermit, why are you only serving food to white people? Shouldn't you be serving colored folks as well? What's wrong with you?

Sorry. Got sidetracked a little. Anyway, there you are, an innocent victim of circumstances. Your underpaid black employee gets outed as a secret civil rights activist, and the KKK is now threatening to firebomb your restaurant, target you and your family, and possibly kill innocent patrons of your business. What do you do? Well, naturally, Hermit, you would keep that employee on the payroll forever and defy the Klan. Coward that I am, I would consider letting him go in order to preserve my business and keep my family and clients safe.

But I'm still wondering about your heroic effort to keep that black employee on the payroll. If you were going to defend this employee, then why run a racially segregated business in the first place? And why is a civil rights activist working in a business that refuses to serve people of color?

And while we're at it, why was this white supremacist in our real life story working in a business that served people of color? What's up with that? How well is that going to sit with people of color who come to sit in the restaurant?

All of these moral dilemmas are giving me a headache, Hermit, but I'm counting on you to tell me what the right thing to do here is. Fire the employee or keep him on and to hell with the consequences? Enlighten me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hypothetical: You own a home and have a big family. Some of the family lives with you, some of which are minorities. One day, a Nazi and two collaborators try to move into your home with you. Do you (a) kick them off your property because they are evil Nazis who regularly irrationally create risk of harm to others, (b) let them move in because free speech, or (c) let them move in and then kick them out later when you get threatening phone calls from Antifa?

Probably let them move in, develop personal relationships with minorities, and learn to disavow their stupid hate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hypothetical: You own a home and have a big family. Some of the family lives with you, some of which are minorities. One day, a Nazi and two collaborators try to move into your home with you. Do you (a) kick them off your property because they are evil Nazis who regularly irrationally create risk of harm to others, (b) let them move in because free speech, or (c) let them move in and then kick them out later when you get threatening phone calls from Antifa?

Probably let them move in, develop personal relationships with minorities, and learn to disavow their stupid hate.

I am skeptical that this is realistic. They'd have closer people to them than you, telling them they are wrong possibly their whole lives, and they'd have had contact with minorities before, such as in school. They might even have antisocial personality disorder, be criminally insane, or otherwise mentally defective like James Alex Fields. What makes you think that when you try you'd be able to pull it off? What are the variables that are different and better? And are you willing to be accountable for the risk to others you are creating by letting terrible crazy people live with you? Say, for example, they kill one of your relatives...would you be just as willing to take responsibility for your bad decision as you would be to take the responsibility for it, if you succeeded in turning them?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trust me. I saw a movie about it once.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Hypothetical: You own a home and have a big family. Some of the family lives with you, some of which are minorities. One day, a Nazi and two collaborators try to move into your home with you. Do you (a) kick them off your property because they are evil Nazis who regularly irrationally create risk of harm to others, (b) let them move in because free speech, or (c) let them move in and then kick them out later when you get threatening phone calls from Antifa?

Kick them out because the only people allowed on my private property are those who I decide can be on my private property.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Kick them out because the only people allowed on my private property are those who I decide can be on my private property.

I bet the Girl Scouts just love running past your house.