Discussion
  • Read More
    MattHamilton Nolan
    5/16/16 12:31pm

    Glad that you wrote this, and that you spelled out, in detail, why giving employers an ever widening purview over our personal lives is such a dangerous standard to allow. Of course, I’m sure that there will be plenty of people that will be on here defending this guys suspension. Partly because they’re self-righteous fucks that look back on their own pasts with rose-colored glasses, but mostly because they’re the type of fools who look at precedents like this and honestly believe it could never happen to them.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      GrizzlyAdamsBeardMatt
      5/16/16 12:39pm

      Employers have every right to judge an employees’ personal life choices and how they may affect their business.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      TheBurnersMyDestinationMatt
      5/16/16 12:40pm

      It’s also important to note that lots of people get into these racist fuckwad groups because they feel (true or not) that they are disenfranchised from society. There is a reason a lot of them are recruited young from bad home situations. Not allowing them back into society (which usually means having a job) after they disavow that thinking enforces that idea, and makes people more prone to extremism, not less. I have similar feelings about how we treat ex-cons.

      This guy has a past, but it is just that, past. He has disavowed it and it doesn't seem to have any impact on his current work. In fact, it probably puts him in a better position to be a role model for youth who are a part of racist and extremist movements- proof that they too can get out and have a normal life.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ArdenHamilton Nolan
    5/16/16 12:36pm

    100% agreed. I don’t care if someone is the biggest racist, sexist, piece of shit you can imagine, they should not be fired if those beliefs and attitudes ARE NOT being manifest in the workplace.

    To advocate that what someone does off the clock, out of uniform, off company property, on their own time is grounds for termination is to cede complete control of our daily life to corporations.

    I do not want to live in a wold where drunk, political argument, in a bar at 2am Saturday gets me a pink slip on Monday.

    The first person to honestly tell me we SHOULD punish people for off-work behavior is the first person I want to see hand over all their social media, internet comment history, and entire phone text history to HR, and see how long your ass lasts.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SoniaGArden
      5/16/16 12:42pm

      Except simply knowing that your coworker is a racist piece of shit makes it hard for other people to do their jobs.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      weebleswobbleArden
      5/16/16 12:43pm

      Independent of the case at hand, where the person claims to have moved past the beliefs, do you think it’s possible for someone who is actively and aggressively racist and sexist in their free time to not have that manifest in the workplace?

      If someone genuinely believes black people have inferior intelligence or that women should not be allowed out of the kitchen or that lynching should be AOK, do you really believe they can just flip that switch completely off from 9 to 5?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    tito_swinefluHamilton Nolan
    5/16/16 12:30pm

    Skinhead is not synonymous with racist. I’ve known many many skinheads in my life. A small number of them were not assholes. A larger number than that were not racists. This guy was clearly a racist skinhead, but not all skinheads are racists. It’s like you guys weren’t even around in the 80's punk scene!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Cam/rontito_swineflu
      5/16/16 12:31pm

      I haven’t seen SHARPs for years, are they still around?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      RappingNinjatito_swineflu
      5/16/16 12:32pm

      I think you’re talking about “people with shaved heads.” I’ve never heard anyone identify THEMSELVES as a “skinhead” who wasn’t also opting into racism.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    det-devil-ailsHamilton Nolan
    5/16/16 12:34pm

    ‘Your employer is not the judge and jury of your personal political beliefs. Your employer is someone who pays you money to do a job.’

    Couldn’t employing a former Nazi also create the sense of a “hostile work environment” for other employees that might be sensitive to this revelation?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Ittybittykittydet-devil-ails
      5/16/16 12:41pm

      So people that were wrong at one time in their lifes should be marred about it forever and not allowed to work at all? Do you also defend people getting fired because they used to be felons? Should those people that regret their past as nazi simpathizers just off themselves since you believe they dont have the right to food and bed in society?
      What if they were transgender instead? or gay? Or former christians? Former muslims? What do you define as a life sentence of not getting work and dying in the streets because of your fee-fees?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      XsinkingshipXdet-devil-ails
      5/16/16 12:43pm

      If you actually believe this and arent just playing “Devils advocate”, you’re the worst ever...unfortunately, you think this opinion makes you enlightened. If you change Nazi to “Ex-Con”, do you feel the same?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Armageddon T. ThunderbirdHamilton Nolan
    5/16/16 12:23pm

    Skinhead in the ‘80s, food blogger today.

    Tomato, tomhato.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Mount_PrionArmageddon T. Thunderbird
      5/16/16 12:25pm

      I’m going to choose to pronounce that second one as Tom-hate-oh cause that feels relevant.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Masshole JamesArmageddon T. Thunderbird
      5/16/16 12:27pm

      You really need to be careful about the “T” word around here.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ChrisMSFHamilton Nolan
    5/16/16 4:04pm

    So you also support the Duck Dynasty guy? That shouldn't have been fired by whatever network he's on for his anti-gay, anti-women screeds? No, you don't, and this is no different. Employees represent the employer, and when they choose to act in a way that looks bad for their employer, they can get canned for it. The end.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SalomeSalamiChrisMSF
      5/17/16 6:11pm

      Do you see the difference between currently espoused views by an adult and the views espoused decades ago by a teenager who has grown up to reject those views?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ChrisMSFSalomeSalami
      5/17/16 6:37pm

      Yes, I do. But a) this guy is still posing with racist punks in his adult years and b) even that doesn’t matter, because it’s too damaging to associate with the skinhead/nazi movement. Of course he can't be the face of a consumer-facing website. Plus, you're forgetting one thing: fuck this guy. Because nobody should ever be stupid enough to be a fucking Nazi, and I don't have a problem with people being held accountable for that if it's their past.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    emooHamilton Nolan
    5/16/16 1:39pm

    I am really struggling with this. And no, I don’t support what Eater is doing. But in a world where people are increasingly publicizing their views and lives, this is not quite as simple as you’re making it out to be.

    As an example, do you think that Univision and NBC were wrong to split with Trump?

    http://gawker.com/nbc-to-donald-…

    So how does that jive with this?

    “Being placed on leave by your employer after a public backlash to something that does not directly affect your work is not one of those ways. Your employer is not the judge and jury of your personal political beliefs.”

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Srynersonemoo
      5/16/16 2:27pm

      It seems to jive pretty easily to me — Trump is presently antagonizing customers(viewers) of Univision/NBC; Solares is accused of having done bad things 20+ years ago and no one so far has come forward to accuse him of present (or fairly recent) bad behavior.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      emooSrynerson
      5/16/16 4:01pm

      It’s pretty clear from this piece that HamNo is saying that it is still not ok to fire people for beliefs they currently espouse, no matter how unpopular, so long as they do their thing on their own time.

      “Perhaps you are a Green Party member in Kansas who works for a Trump-supporting boss. Perhaps you were a rapper when you were younger and recorded songs with violent, sexist lyrics. Perhaps you are a woman who’s spoken openly about having an abortion. Perhaps you are a Communist on the weekends. Perhaps you did stupid things in college, and there are pictures. As long as these things do not directly hurt your workplace performance, they are none of your employer’s business.”

      And I think that’s a pretty extreme position. It also leaves a lot of people in the lurch: if you’re an openly racist nut job after hours, then go to work as a bartender, can your employer fire you because the clientele associates your face with your extracurricular activities? If you are photographed at a Sanders rally breastfeeding, and your photo goes viral, can your employer decide that that’s not an association she wants with her incredibly prudish business?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Dave Hamilton Nolan
    5/16/16 12:42pm

    I’ve been making a similar argument for people who oppose equal rights for gays under the guise of “religious freedom”. While they are odious and wrong, but getting them fired from their jobs for holding a legally protected speech/idea is equally wrong. This is America, we are free to be assholes!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ProudBlackWomanDave
      5/16/16 1:01pm

      This is America, we are free to be assholes!

      hell we were fucking founded on it, i mean what sort of asshole throws tea into the river

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      swedeandsourDave
      5/16/16 1:09pm

      There also seems to be a bit of a difference with this case— namely that he doesn’t hold these beliefs anymore and seemingly hasn’t in 30 years.

      It seems super problematic to suggest— as some on this board have— that the things you believed 30 years ago create a hostile work environment in your job today.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    UrbanNunEnthusiastHamilton Nolan
    5/16/16 12:30pm

    Workplace personnel decisions—hiring, firing, promotions, demotions, suspensions, discipline, being placed on leave—should not be made based upon things people do or believe in their personal time.

    So, without trying to take any one side or another because truly I am curious, can we conclude you think Curt Schilling should not have been fired from ESPN?

    Also, isn’t it fair that an employer should be able to choose who represents them? While I agree with what you say in principle, just as people shouldn’t be fired for their past, isn’t it also true that no one should be forced to keep an employee whose image - even if they have since dispelled that image - they feel could be detrimental to their brand?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      pre-emptive sighUrbanNunEnthusiast
      5/16/16 12:34pm

      Curt Shilling immediately came to my mind as well. If ESPN didn’t fire him, they’d essentially have been condoning his behavior. It doesn’t matter if he did it during his own time, he’s still representing the company. Ray Rice didn’t beat his fiance on a practice field, but it sure as hell cost the NFL lots of PR. Claiming that off-hours stuff doesn’t matter to a business is just ridiculous.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      UrbanNunEnthusiastpre-emptive sigh
      5/16/16 12:41pm

      I’m inclined to agree. I mean... I get what they are trying to say, but in a world where people so readily and openly spit out their personal opinions, and where such actions can have global reach, to act like personal lives shouldn’t be relevant seems unrealistic at best.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Pink SkullHamilton Nolan
    5/16/16 12:36pm

    They shouldn’t have that power, but I think they do. New York is an at will state. I’ll cede to any labor lawyers here, but as I understand it you can be fired for virtually anything. One exception he could make is that this is in response to his participating in a legal activity. But his job is to give his opinion, and the company may not want a known racist to represent them. It also calls into question whether he can adequately review a black owned business.

    My guess is they are within their rights to can him.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Jerry-NetherlandPink Skull
      5/16/16 12:47pm

      There was a photo of him (on the last article about this a few days ago) standing outside a kosher deli - notably, in long sleeves. I couldn’t help but wonder what is on those thirty year old tattoos; swastikas? Klan iron crosses? If so - if he’s truly reformed - why hasn’t he had them removed? Otherwise that might make it rather awkward to go into a lot of ethnic restaurants. This is all conjecture, but could certainly give the employer some wiggle room.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      TheBurnersMyDestinationJerry-Netherland
      5/16/16 12:58pm

      Tattoo removal is expensive and painful and some people aren't able to do it. If he has disavowed those beliefs and keeps them covered at work it doesn't seem like a big deal.

      Reply
      <