Fired – For Love Without Marriage...the American Taliban at work

[splat@14]

(AP) The owners of a roller skating rink have fired an 18-year-old woman they called one of their "Top 10" employees because she moved in with her boyfriend, violating a company ethics policy that prohibits "live-in relationships of an intimate nature."

"I loved my job and I didn't want to leave," Crystal Plotner told the Coeur d'Alene Press this week.

She said she was fired after casually telling her bosses, Skate Plaza owners Marvin and Pat Miller, that she planned to move in with her boyfriend in mid-May.

<snip>

"Even if I had gone to their church, I don't think it would have saved my job," said Plotner, who worked at Skate Plaza for three years and made $9.25 an hour. "They didn't want me to live with my boyfriend. They were pushing their religion on me and I was offended. I don't have the same religious beliefs as they do."



"Our advice is not to do this," Miller added. "It's fine and certainly her business that she did, but either we throw the handbook out or follow what's in it."

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fstories%2F2006%2F06%2F16%2Fnational%2Fprintable1719796.shtml

[Sailor for Warner]

1. I dont see the comparison

This is a private employer setting a policy at their place of business. The employees I am sure are required to acknowledge this ethics policy before they are hired. Its a stupid policy but it is perfectly within the buiness owners rights.

[electron_blue]

5. is it, really? Are you sure about this, legally?

[unblock]

10. i'm afraid sailor has a valid point

at least in "at-will" states, employers can fire employees at any time for any reason unless it is specifically prohibited by federal laws. this are generally limited to race/color, religion, national/ethnic origin, sex, and disability.

none of these apply here.

it sucks and it's wrong but i'm pretty sure it's legal.

[Union Thug]

13. Legal - maybe - but

you summed it up. It's wrong.

If it's wrong then the law needs to be challenged. If it's challenged in a court of law, any decent civil rights attorney should be able to blow this up and call the constitutionality of the law into question. I understand that it is more difficult in some places than others (think 'right to work' states), but it should not be ignored and written off without some challenge.

The question is, how far do we allow employers to influence our lives? In my opinion, it begins and ends at the door of the business.

[Clark2008]

18. I live in one and I call then "right to be fired unfairly" states.

eom

[Toots]

20. You think this has nothing to do with religion?

Is there law in place about cohabitation? I suspect this is completely about religion unless there is civil law in place.

[Union Thug]

21. I agree, the rationale was religiously motivated...but

the bigger issue is employee/employer relations.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

49. Doesn't a religiously motivated rationale kicks federal law in? -nt

[elehhhhna]

26. Betcha it qualifies roralas religious persecution. If they even MENTIONED

their relig. beliefs as a reason, they're on the hook.

People, do not tell your employers everything about you, please.

[idgiehkt]

41. Uh oh.

I hope you're right:
"Miller said that in talking with Plotner, they were approaching the issue as employers, friends and Christians."

[Union Thug]

43. I agree. Only tell employers what is necessary to do the job.

Even the best employers can't be trusted with personal information. If it comes out of your mouth, expect that someone, someday, is going to hold it over your head.

In the end, employees are considered impediments to the profits game and part of this game involves making sure the right kind of people are kept in, while others who may differ politically or morally with the employer are pushed out of the game (regardless of the law). If you believe otherwise, you're a victim of the propaganda of the RayGun years and fallout that has permeated all of today's politics. Even the best employees are considered little more than cogs that can be removed and replaced like a lug nut.

[Jade Fox]

29. It might fall under "marital status"....

as in they are discriminating against someone based on her marital status.

Idaho is living in the dark ages, however. She'll have a tough time getting justice there.

[elehhhhna]

45. Nope not buying. she's single or married, regardless of whom the shacks

up with. It's her personal living arrangements and they're bent because it's aDARKSIDED. Betcha ten bucks.

[BlackVelvet04]

38. hmmmmmmmmm

"at least in "at-will" states, employers can fire employees at any time for any reason unless it is specifically prohibited by federal laws. this are generally limited to race/color, religion, national/ethnic origin, sex, and disability."

Actually it does seem to be about sex.....somebody is getting some.

[elehhhhna]

46. IF THEY MENTIONED RELIGIONit's too late & they blew it . Period.

Cat's outta the bag as Mister Frist would say.

[elehhhhna]

47. If they cited a religious connection they're TOAST. period.

[msongs]

6. the policy regulates her OFF duty behavior - your analysis is incorrect

you say

"..setting a policy at their place of business.."

well she doesnt live with her boyrfriend AT WORK does she?

what's next, "no jews allowed"?

can we now start firing all christians because of their off work beliefs?

according to your logic we can.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[The Straight Story]

16. Some companies will fire you if you smoke - at home

So I can see them getting away with this crap too.

[Union Thug]

9. Disagree

So long as the employee is performing at or above expectations, what a worker does in their private life should be no business of the employer. These repukes are happy to bitch about government interference in the private lives of citizens (funny as it sounds considering their defense of spying on citizens, PATRIOT act, etc), but it's perfectly ok if business does it.

Ethics policies may dictate how one conducts himself on the job, but it is dangerous to allow them to dictate who one lives, sleeps or otherwise enjoys life with. As much as the right wing in this country would like it, our identities are not direct correlates of our jobs. We are able to enjoy a portion of our life (an increasingly shrinking portion, sadly) free from the drudgery of the workplace.

[Lusted4]

12. I wonder if they screen there patrons also. If so do they not let them

skate or just charge them a couple bucks more?

[Poppyseedman]

22. In many jobs what a worker does in their personal life

is the business of the employer.

I would agree that a skate rink worker would not fall into the category of a business executive or people working in sensitive industries where what they do outside of work could harm their employer or made or break a business deal.

There are many examples of conduct people can and can not do that would result in their termination. As long as those employment polices are in place when you agree to be employed, you have to live by them.

I personally have terminated people who have broken policies clearly outlined in the employee handbook for activities done outside of work.

Example: Being convicted of a DUI

[Union Thug]

33. If it impacts their performance

(and these performance issues are clearly documented) or if they are openly acting as an agent of the company at the time of the incident, then fine. Otherwise, the company has no right to interfere in the lives of the workers.

Convicted of a DUI? So what? Does the conviction interfere with the ability of the person to perform their job? If so, terminate them (maybe they missed critical deadlines because their ass was planted in a local jail). It then becomes a performance issue. But for the DUI itself - that's the business of the state and and its citizens. There are POSSIBLE exceptions, as when a person is doing something that could clearly put at risk the lives and health of others. For example, a school bus driver who gets a DUI or a heavy machine operator with a blow habit; but even then, if the person isn't bringing this behavior (or the clearly negative consequences of this behavior) to the workplace, then it's questionable whether this is an issue that would, to my mind, justify termination.

Where I work, we had a woman who was CLEARLY dealing with an alcohol problem. Now, had this problem not affected the quality of her work, she would still be working there today. However, it DID, in fact, impact her performance. But I work for a pretty decent employer, and instead of immediately reaching for the termination switch, they offered her help in dealing with her issue (we have GREAT health insurance and a pretty decent HR department - one of the few companies left that can boast as much in this country). When she failed to complete her treatment plan, as you might expect, the work continued to suffer, and she was, eventually terminated. But she was not terminated for her alcoholism, she was terminated because her performance was impacted.

Should her alcoholism alone have been enough to terminate her? I don't think so.

[Poppyseedman]

48. When you utilize delivery drivers in your business

it certainly matters if they get a DUI off work.

Lawyer: Mr Poppyseedman, you knowingly let your employer who already had a conviction for DUI continue to drive your company vehicle that slaughtered this poor family of five on the highway while he was drunk."

Mr Poppyseedman: Yes. he told me the DUI was an aberration and not in his character. It would never happen again.

Lawyer:"But it did and you knew he had a drinking problem, yet you continued to take every families life into your own hands driving a car and passed judgment on their value and safety just to get a delivery made to earn you a profit"

You get my point

[elehhhhna]

27. Employees tell too much, imo.

[Lusted4]

11. What was unethical about it? If she had lied about it then she would

have been unethical.

[TahitiNut]

15. In Korporate Amerika, tyranny can be out-sourced.

Corporations are the "super-citizens" who own our government. Government now exists to serve their holy interests in the almighty dollar and ensure the labor force is kept desperate enough to work for less. Workers are owned in today's "ownership society" - employers are now allowed to control workers' private and personal lives, even off the job. Smoking? Employers are now prohibiting workers from smoking, both at work and in their homes. Health care? Work or die. Pension? Forget 'em - wiped out to pay CEOs hundreds of millions in 'compensation.'

Invasion of privacy and identity theft are now facilitated by government - out-sourced at taxpayer expense.

[Union Thug]

19. It 's a neo-Dickens world

And the right wing LOVES it.

So long as there are profits to be made, fuck you, fuck your family, and to hell with any concept of community. THAT, in a nutshell, is the fundamental psychology of the engine that drives the free marketeers. From the perspective of a capitalist, the worker is a necessary evil.

[splat@14]

25. I see your point & while I believe that a workplace is free to set its own

rules, I'm concerned over how far this can go. What if she had a female room mate. Would she have to prove that they aren't gay in order to have her employer "allow" their cohabitation?

IMO, the employer shouldn't have any say over ones private life that doesn't affect the job (eg non-smoking only employers can get better insurance rates for all if no one smokes, etc.).

[havocmom]

42. And did the employer actually PAY her enough so she could live

alone/pay all the rent and utilities on her own, and still manage to buy food, gas to get to work and the occasional splurge of a new tee shirt to wear to work? Bet not.

What about the immorality of employers who do not pay living wages to their good employees yet mandate how they live?

I agree with you, employer shouldn't have a say in lifestyle, but in too many states, they do.

People, time to fire up the printers and deluge OP/ED pages with LTTE on this one. Time to make state legislatures sign up with reality of wages and rents in America.
Time for them to make employers mind their own business.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

34. Of course you don't see it. n/t

MKJ

[fishwax]

35. the comparison has not to do with legality, but rather with

the degree to which the powerful exercise control over the ethics/behavior of their "subjects."

[bettyellen]

39. i asked a guy tabling for warner about reproductive rights.....

and after explaining what the meant (sad but true) he still looked confused, then blurted out- what hilary says!

[DarleenMB]

50. Really?

Since when does any employer have a right to dictate what an employee may or may not do on their own time?

[sandnsea]

53. Corporatist brainwashing

Americans used to know their private lives were their private business which had nothing to do with their jobs. I do not know why people are giving up the entire concept of independence and freedom and handing over the power of control to a business owner. It's no different than giving personal freedom over to a religion or city council. People have got to stop believing other people, even a business owner, have more rights than they do. It's the exact opposite of what the Constitution created.

[kdpeters]

58. I agree to a point

For three years the employee implicitly agreed to the terms of her employment. If you consent to objectional terms because they have no current relevance in your life, you're still bound by the agreement when they do. It's she that doesn't have the right to now expect special exemption.

However, these marriage requirements have the effect of disparate treatment for gay employees. Though gay marriage is not legal in most places and discrimination against gays is, they may be within the law, but I would disagree they are within their rights.

Of course, there are many reasons why this policy deserves no respect, but people have the right to be repugnant.

[FloridaPat]

2. We've become the country of religious intolerance that the Pilgrams

and others left Europe to get away from.

[smirkymonkey]

32. I only wish they'd take some of us back...

- sigh -

[Union Thug]

3. So, we are letting businesses dictate how we live our lives?

Sounds like time for a 'hostile takeover', as they say.

Welcome to the Fascist States of America. That invisible hand delivers a sound spanking, doesn't it?

[elehhhhna]

28. No joke. How many kids do they allow their employees, each?

[BuelahWitch]

40. They probably don't allow them to use birth control

[Liberal Veteran]

4. I hope she sues the living crap out of them.

Seems to me, if her story is correct, her civil rights have been violated.

[Ilsa]

7. Their church could do more to bring in the "sinners" if they

showed love instead of judgment. Jesus didn't tell sinners to "get lost".

This kind of judgmentalism is why so many young people feel disenfranchised by conservative Christianity and turn to other spiritual sources.

[Ian David]

8. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman and MANDATORY for ALL

Let's say that everyone must be required to be married by age 25, with no exceptions-- not even for the priesthood. Oh, and no divorce. Add that to the anti-gay marriage amendment, and I'd vote for it just to watch heads explode.

[Ezlivin]

14. I hope they fired all employees who violated ANY of the 10 commandments

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Better make sure that the other employees are keeping Jehovah God up front.

2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Any crucifixes or images of Jesus are cause for dismissal.

3) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Any conjoining of "God" with any swear or curse word qualifies you for unemployment. (That includes god-dang and gosh-darn which we all know is simply a clever way to mask the sin.)

4) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

If Skate Plaza is open on Sunday then hell-fire shall rain down. And no employee should mow their lawn, wash their car or do any work at all on Sunday.

5) Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Better check this one closely; some employees may think all their parents need is a Social Security check and some bingo.

6) Thou shalt not kill.

Definitely.

7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.

This one bears scrutiny. There could be a lot of this going on.

8) Thou shalt not steal.

And stealing is not the CEO getting hundreds of times more salary and benefits.

9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

The only way to be sure is to interrogate every employee's neighbor. Or look at the phone records that the NSA already has.

10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Even though this destroys the whole rationale behind capitalism, if any employee wants more than he or she has, they should be fired.

[Union Thug]

17. Though the rationale behind the termination

may have been religiously motivated, the bigger issue is the power of business over the lives of workers.

Personally, to avoid the issue being interpreted through religious filters, which is immediately going to put a lot of believers on the defensive, I think the argument needs to be framed as one of interference in the private lives of citizens.

I'm not sure it destroys the rationale behind capitalism, because capitalism has no intrinsic soul, ethics or values: only a predatory appetite for money. But it does undermine the basic tenets of a democratic society that ostensibly presumes to frown upon establishment of a theocracy.

[Crowdance]

30. They're open on Sunday, a real failure to keep the Sabbath

Here's their url: http://www.skateplazacda.com/

It's got a convenient "Contact Us" button which could be used to clarify the confusion about the Sunday thing...

[karlrschneider]

59. Check out their "mission statement"

Mission Statement:
To provide our community and patrons with a wholesome, safe, clean entertainment facility for the purpose of enjoying the sport of roller skating and socializing with others, without regard to age, religious preference or nationality.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

:eyes: :puke: :grr:

[Jed Dilligan]

23. That nasty pedophile-looking fuckwad Cal Thomas

mentioned this, last week or the week before, as a reason not to allow gays to marry... that it was some sort of steppingstone towards ending discrimination against unmarried straights living together!

So I guess this is more widespread than people might imagine.

[Jade Fox]

31. Just like with abortion.....

First they try to end access to abortion, and then move on to birth control. Their larger agenda is to limit and regulate people's sex lives.

Here the larger issue is to force the Religious Right's agenda on ALL relationships.

[Jed Dilligan]

36. When I read that article I turned to my friend

We're both unmarried guys living with female partners--and I said, "Wow, gay marriage is really about US!"

[gollygee]

24. Employers do not own their employees

and shouldn't be able to regulate things about them that are not work related.

The smoking issue isn't really parallel because that does effect employers by causing their insurance costs to go up. The answer to that problem IMO is to stop having this insane connection between employment and insurance. It is unfair both to workers and employers.

[wuushew]

37. This company deserves to be burned to the ground

notice that they fired her after after she said she planned (future not present tense)to move in with her bf. Even assuming one could make a binding employment contract over such as thing how does one explain preemptive termination based on an event that has not yet occurred?

[Pierre.Suave]

44. There is only one answer...

Sue the SHIT out of them, take the skateplaza as payment, then she can hire them at $9.25/hour and dictate to them how they live their lives.

[fishwax]

52. that would be nice to see

:)

[Trillo]

51. Time for 7-day/24-hour paychecks?

If someone can be fired for a legal activity that occurs during an off-the-clock time, then it's time to be paid for 24-hours of labor everyday of everyweek.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

54. It is unfortunate and she should not

have volunteered personal information.

But look at it from the other point of view. Suppose you were an employer and found out that your employee was active in the Klan? It's legal, but you think it is just plain wrong.

Just like this employer felt about the girl's private behavior.

I think the government needs to stay out of these situations. You hire people you approve of. It's your right as an employer.

[Trillo]

55. Okay, instead of the Klan,

what if the employer just found out the employee attended an anti-war rally? Or how about changed their political affiliation to one of a non-approved variety?

If one wishes control over someone else's time, it is 'reasonable' for the 'someone else' to expect payment for the loss of freedom that occurs during that time period.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

56. I agree with you in spirit

but I still want the freedom to fire the Klan guy!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

57. How does this relate to drug testing, I wonder?