posted
There is a march tomorrow in Houston to protest the new Immigration Bill. I have just been told that anyone who participates in the march will be fired because the march takes place during business hours. Is that constitutional?
posted
It's probably wrongful termination if you take off work, and your contract doesn't specifically prohibit you from participating, in my uneducated opinion.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I work for the Hilton. They're saying because we didn't request off the required 2 weeks in advance we can't have the day off. The march wasn't planned 2 weeks ago. and besides, they let people take off with short notice all the time.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, are you in an employment-at-will state? If so, it's probably legal as can be. It's dumb of your employer to try it, though, if you're a protected status minority.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So people can't be fired for participating in union rallies, but they can for participating in political rallies. harrumph. I think i may just have to take an extra long lunch and get a pink slip for it.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
we just recieved an email telling all of the managers to keep their nextels on all day in case they are called in due to short staff because of the march. I had been planning to attend, so I asked if people would be fired, and i got a resounding yes.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're seriously asking if it's constitutional for a private employer to fire you for walking off the job when you haven't had leave granted? Uh, yes. Of course. Duh.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They would be making something that had not been a fireable offence fireable. (i'm not sure fireable is a word). Taking a long break, or calling in is not grounds for termination unless it is the 3rd time you do it.
and I thought that somewhere in the constitution it included something about citizens being protected from recrimination due to peacefull political protest. If i'm wrong, my bad, but there should be.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the company is saying "Anyone who participates in the march will be fired" then you'd have probably* have grounds for a wrongful termination suit. Particularly if somebody goes to the protest who wasn't scheduled to work that day anyway. *I'm not a lawyer, I don't know for sure.
But if they're saying "Anyone who misses their scheduled shift on this day will be fired, and we won't accept 'I was at the protest' as an excuse for missing your shift." then it's a harsh attendance policy but probably legal.
It seems more likely that the second example is really the case.
posted
The first amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble & to petition the government -- but that is a restriction on the government itself, not private employers.
If they are changing what constitutes a fireable offense, then you have a better case that they are acting unfairly, but the constitution still has no bearing.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the school's have a more clear cut problem. They are making the punishment for missing classes to attend the rally more severe than simply ditching class.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scholar's mention of schools doing something similar reminds me of another possibility: They may fear that a lot of people are going to miss work (or class) for this particular day, leaving them very understaffed, and so they're making a threat that they may not actually back up in hopes of discouraging skipping on that day.
posted
It's been covered - no, it's not constitutional and it's probably legal, just as Pix said.
Further, Enigmatic is right about fears of too many people taking off. If they have a policy requiring two week's notice, they can likely enforce it when not doing so might lead to problems even if they only enforce it sporadically at other times.
That is assuming they're enforcing a no short-notice leave policy for tomorrow. If they make exceptions for people not attending the rally they could face trouble - I'm not really sure.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing to take into consideration is that they aren't necessarily changing any of their official policies about what is a "fireable offense" likely as not, sudden leave of absence with out the requisite warning always was such an offense, which was just generally not enforced.
There are any number of things that most buisnesses COULD fire you for, but don't (such as my reading/typing on this forum from work). If they chose to, they would be perfectly within their rights.
That being said, I have the distinct impression that it would be a bad move of theirs politically to fire you for attending the rally, but a good buisness move to threaten you so that you would actually come to work.
With regards to unions there's probably 2 reasons that people generally don't get fired over strikes etc... 1) it may be in the union's legal agreements with the buisness that they can strike on valid grounds (maybe not, but it's a possibility I'd imagine) 2) Power in numbers: the whole point of the union is that if people team up its harder for the system to abuse them, and if someone was fired for such an offense, likely as not the entire union would react harshly with greater reprocussions...
For example, if all of the hotel staff took the day off it would be harder for them to fire anyone, because then others might quit, they'd have to fire everyone, etc... but if one or two people go, it might be easier for them to punish.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:With regards to unions there's probably 2 reasons that people generally don't get fired over strikes etc... 1) it may be in the union's legal agreements with the buisness that they can strike on valid grounds (maybe not, but it's a possibility I'd imagine) 2) Power in numbers: the whole point of the union is that if people team up its harder for the system to abuse them, and if someone was fired for such an offense, likely as not the entire union would react harshly with greater reprocussions...
It's illegal for most companies to fire someone for union activities (assuming the activities are legal, of course).
It is possible to permanently replace strikers, which somehow isn't the same thing as firing them, which is why I didn't take employment law.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they told you that you would be fired for not showing up, it doesn't matter what you were doing while not at work. It sounds like they are only specifically mentioning the march because you asked about it.
Incidently, I have read the summaries of the bill and I am trying to figure out what all the fuss is about. It seems to me that they are helping current and future aliens who are employed gain legal status and they are cracking down on everyone else. They are giving harsher punishments to those who come here illegally and either mooch off the U.S. or get in trouble smuggling narcotics or joining gangs. I just don't see anything wrong with that. Obviously I am missing something...
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MandyM--the version of the bill passed in the House would make all illegal aliens FELONs, with long prison sentences when caught. That is what the protests are about.
Vonk--if they passed out a notice that going to the protest would get you fired, then you would have grounds to sue them. They wouldn't want that bit of info getting into the public record so they'd probably settle. However, if they say you can't take off tomorrow because they fear being dangerously understaffed, then there is little you can do about it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The first amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble & to petition the government -- but that is a restriction on the government itself, not private employers.
That is the complete right answer to your specific question. The Constitution provides limits to Governmental action. The Bill of Rights proscribe the Federal Goverment from taking certan actions.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I asked my mom this question - she is not an employment lawyer so this by no means legal advice. She's just an HR manager with 30 years of experience.
Anyway, she said that in her understanding, they can enforce a particular policy like this one in a way they might not normally if circumstances call for it. She compared it to when really bad weather is forecasted and her stores are in need of every person they can possibly have. In that case, they might send out a notice to all employees that no sick time will be granted without a doctor's note. Normally, sick time for one day or two can be granted without a physician's excuse, but their written policies state that at any time the employee may be required to present official documentation of the illness from a physician. They usually don't enforce it, but if cirumstances call for it, they can.
She cleared that with their attorney, who said it was perfectly fine. So I would assume this is a similar situation - because of the circumstances, they can choose to enforce a policy that is already on the books. Where the employer might be in trouble is if they tried to invent a new policy for the situation, without prior notice. Doesn't sound like that is the case.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I suppose they are within their rights, but I still don't like it. I think that if I ask for a half day off and I have a good reason, my bosses should give me the time off. They have always been understanding in the past. I guess I'm more disappointed in them than anything.
It is possible that enough people would skip work that day that it would cause problems. But it seems like I am being punished for other's offences, because I'm not skipping, I'm asking. And I would have my nextel so they could always call me back if its necessary.
So I guess there is really nothing I can do about it. I still might join the rally for an hour on my lunch break
MandyM - The bill also makes it a felony to offer humanitarian aid to illegal aliens. It expands the realm of what is a "smuggler" to include a far greater number of people. From what I read this originaly included religous and charity organizations, but they amended that after the first rally's in California.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it scary and annoying that, while cool that non-citzens are adopting the joys of a participatory goverment, illegal foreigners are able to influence Congress by these protests.
I’m all for immigration, but the preservation of a common language for the United States takes priority. And unfortunately the illegals from Mexico more often then not refuse to or cannot learn English…and hold Mexico as their homeland…not America. That will lead to a situation like Quebec or the shattering of the Roman Empire.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it very cool and interesting that we are now exposed to Spanish language signs and magazines and stuff here, and that Mexican culture in the form of Latin music and Mexican ingredients in stores is beginning to take hold here. I think the hostility and fear shown by the earlier immigrants to the U.S. are what's sad. Everyone on this continent is an immigrant, or their ancestors were. The only difference is how long ago. (Even the native Americans crossed over the Bering Strait from Asia only 20 or 30 thousand years ago. )
As for Spanish, I think it's a beautiful language, and our country would be stronger if people learned more than one language growing up, like Europeans almost all do. It's not that hard to learn enough Spanish to communicate, not for an educated person. It's a whole lot harder for a Mexican laborer who works long hours for very low wages, and with no schooling much in his first language, even, to learn a second language. Even so, many of them go to English tutoring centers, and there are not enough tutors to go around.
People who think Mexicans should learn English might want to look into becoming certified as a ESL tutor, and volunteering at one of the libraries or Red Cross offices who give English language instruction.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have the whole world move here, that would be fine with me. But there needs to be one language that unifies America. We are a nation of many different ethnic breeds, religions, cultures... the two things that bind us together are the Constitution (and assembled documents) and our common laguage.
It doesn't have to be English, but there must be one laguage that everyone speaks. Otherwise we will fragment.
Many in the business sector want the illegals to keep coming because they can pay them at near slave wages. How can the middle-class compete with that? And also the threat from the near-slavery used in China and other places.
I think we need to have lots of volunteers teaching English. That's a great idea.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The middle class most emphatically isn't competing for a single job with illegal immigrants. I dare you to find a job paying a middle class wage that might plausibly be filled by an illegal immigrant.
China's certainly bad in many ways, but on the whole is very modern as far as workplace practices. It costs less to live decently in China.
We've had far greater influxes (measured by percentage) of immigrants speaking a different language before. In some of those waves of immigrants it wasn't even that common to speak English, with entire communities speaking the language of the old country. We still assimilated them. There's no reason assimilation has to be immediate.
You know how to ensure we keep having problems with illegal immigrants? Keep creating them. The way you fight illegal immigration isn't to make it a felony, its to transform it into legal immigration.
Your characterization of "the business sector" disappoints me as well. Businesses are, on the whole, reasonable entities composed of reasonable people. They don't want to underpay workers, they don't want to break the law, et cetera. For businesses that need cheap labor at a rate few American citizens are willing to work, given a steady supply of legal immigrants or guest workers willingly working at a low but mutually acceptable wage, they'll be quite happy. Try to keep out such legal workers and such businesses will either, yes, choose to employ illegal immigrants (not necessarily at unacceptable wages, either), pay more in an attempt to entice citizens to work there (driving the costs of their services up many-fold), or go out of business.
And lastly, I think your entire premise about language is wrong. Most state collapses have nothing to do with language, and plenty of perfectly stable states have far more language diversity than we would have with even just two languages. Try looking at India! Those states that do collapse in part because of linguistic differences are particularly troubled by social iniquities perpetuated along linguistic lines -- take a look at the split of Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh. Calls for linguistic purity strike me as a descent into a nationalism of absurdity, and I see no particular evidence linguistic variation is dangerous.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:China's certainly bad in many ways, but on the whole is very modern as far as workplace practices. It costs less to live decently in China.
Well of course it does.
And yes, China has very "modern workplace practices"; we'll just overlook all those nasty little problems of child labor and human rights violations in their common labor practices.
::Blink::
What?
I mean I'm with you to a certain extent, but then you throw out China's labor practices as some kind of model? That's just ghastly.
quote:Calls for linguistic purity strike me as a descent into a nationalism of absurdity, and I see no particular evidence linguistic variation is dangerous.
I agree with you in theory.
In reality, though, the argument for a unified language standard is (as it relates to my life) if everyone spoke English I could understand them.
I think the whole world should speak English, in fact. Let's just do away with all other languages. And change the name of 'English' to 'Basic', please. (Like in Star Wars!)
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
China's labor practices are not some kind of model, but on the whole they're not awful. Yes, the government has serious human rights issues, but they're not on issues like forcing people to work.
And you surely have some sources that child labor is more than a small problem in China?
Some useful info: based on standard of living, about 19% of the Chinese population was middle class in 2003. This might not seem like much, until you realize that about 49% of the urban population was middle class -- the vast majority of poor people are rural, primarily small farmers. How does this support the notion of China being a land of bad labor practices?
The GDP per capita in China is around $6.5k. For comparison, the GDP per capita in India is about $3.6k, only a bit more than half China's. Here's a high level overview that dispatches with most of the attacks on China's overall labor practices: http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=201
Yes, China still has issues with labor practices. But the government has put in place solid workplace protection laws, by far most non-farming jobs in China pay very decent wages, and workers in unsatisfactory working conditions are successful seeking improvement (strikes recently started to enjoy sufficient legal protection in China to be effective).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have lots of sympathy for the plight of illegals. If I lived in Mexico in those kinds of conditions, I'd be heading north too. That said, something has to be done. Some kind of "work a while, go home, and if you're good you can come back/move here" thing.
What I don't like the the colonization attitude that I hear sometimes from some groups (a small fraction, for sure). It's almost like they have a right to cross the border however they wish, and we're evil when we try to stop them.
I'm annoyed with the Mexican government too. They have no reason to try to stop the northern flood. Hey, they end up with fewer people draining the treasury. It's a win. If we could export all of our poor to Canada without lifting a finger to do so, how many people do you think would actually care? Oh they'd say that they did, but inside?
I've heard the statistic that 20% of Mexico lives in the US. I expect that's a junk statistic, but I'm seriously amazed at how many mouths I've heard it from.
I must say, I'd be worried if vast amounts of white English speakers were here illegally, so it's not the language/racial thing that bothers me.
I just wish Americans had the kind of work ethic that these illegal immigrants seem to have. For that, they have my respect, and (IMO) much dignity. They don't come here looking for a hand out, just a hand up. We should watch, and learn.
Something has to be done, though. I just hope it's the right thing.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reticulum, you're clearly not understanding how differences in income between countries don't mean significant differences in standard of living.
For instance, middle class in China, with a comparable standard of living to our middle class, starts at about $19k.
Here's a chart giving population percents below poverty line, as of several years ago:
The international poverty line is approximately $1 a day in 1985 dollars adjusted for local purchasing power parity. The basic result is that $6.5k is well over the poverty line in China.
Its extremely important to understand that the numbers printed on currency are essentially meaningless; they are merely units, with no value except what is given for them. The only useful numbers are how much of what one wants/needs one can buy with a particular income where one shops. When one shops in China, one can (in particular) buy a heck of a lot more food for much cheaper prices than in the US, and one can buy good housing for a heck of a lot less.
To elaborate some on China's labor situation:
China has a better labor situation than 4/5ths of the rest of the world. China's labor laws are modern, and compliance is constantly increasing. In other words, China's workplace practices are pretty dang good, generally speaking. Should they be much, much better? No doubt, but holding up China as an example of bad workplace standards is quite silly, when on the scale of how things actually are they're in about the top 20% or better.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know how to ensure we keep having problems with illegal immigrants? Keep creating them. The way you fight illegal immigration isn't to make it a felony, its to transform it into legal immigration.
I completely agree with this. IMO, if the US is good enought that enough people want to come here that we have to start arresting people on felony charges for giving humanitarian aid to illegal immigrants, we need to make it a lot easier to become a resident alien.
In Houston, the Spanish speakers far outnumber the English. I thoroughly enjoy the multitude of foreign languages that I hear from day to day. It makes me wish that I had been raised bilingual, but I've had to learn enough to communicate. So it would be a good thing if more languages became common in the US.
I don't know how many illegal immigrants I see on a daily basis, but I'm sure their there. And I see people working just as hard as I do, if not harder, to contribute to the econommy and raise a family and be at peace. And for as long as I can remember, la migra has been a bad thing.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:China has a better labor situation than 4/5ths of the rest of the world. China's labor laws are modern, and compliance is constantly increasing. In other words, China's workplace practices are pretty dang good, generally speaking. Should they be much, much better? No doubt, but holding up China as an example of bad workplace standards is quite silly, when on the scale of how things actually are they're in about the top 20% or better.
You go work there.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think enough that there are very important people seriously advocating making illegal immigration itself a felony.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Ok, enough that we have come close to having a policy of arresting people on felony charges for giving humanitarian aid.
better?
Not really. If no sponsor of the bill intended that to be the case, how did we "come close" to that result?
quote:I think enough that there are very important people seriously advocating making illegal immigration itself a felony.
Which is very different than making it a felony to feed a hungry kid without making them fill out an I-9 form.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL: oddly enough, there's a decent chance I will. I'm aiming at a career in humanitarian assistance policy, and China both has problems of its own and is well-located for work related to many surrounding regions.
However, when about 80% of the world would jump at a chance to work in China, your attempt at a comeback takes on a decidedly comedic value.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Crossed posts; my previous response was to your post regarding illegal immigration)
You're right, I misplaced about a billion due to talking about 4/5ths of the rest of the world, not including China before. 72 to 73% of the world would love to work in China .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
