<font color="plum">GOOD NEWS for those that supported Stephen Downs and his "right" to wear a "peace" T-shirt while shopping at Crossgates Mall in Albany, NY. Not only have ALL charges against Mr. Downs been dropped...but the security guard that signed the police complaint form against him has been <font color=red>FIRED!!!!</font>

Actually, the guard (Robert Williams) was fired just 3 days after having Mr. Downs arrested for trespassing when he refused to leave the premises. The fact that Mr. Downs' shirt violated a new policy of the mall regarding "apparal messages" is beside the point. Apparantly, it is also irrelevant that Robert Williams was just trying to do the job he had been hired to do (namely, enforce mall rules and policies). Here is a link to the story carried by a local news station - Crossgates Fires Security Guard

So it is a victory for "Freedom of Speech"....but at what cost? [img]graemlins/verysad.gif[/img] </font>

i have mixed emotions on this one... but that was very harsh for someone to lost someones livelihood simply because he was doing his job. that sucks.

Somehow I don't feel right about this. people getting fired for doing their job.

Perhaps the gaurd exceeded his authority...ejection is usually a management concern unless it is a legit security concern, then the police are called.

I would fire a disruptive gaurd who accosted customers abritarily and with-out communicating to managment.

Perhaps the gaurd acted unprofessionally during the altercation and was let go.

Perhaps this has nada to do with freedom of speech, but with treating people respectfully or following chain of command.

[ 03-24-2003, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

perhaps the victim was the one who was the impolite one that made the guard to ask unprofessionaly. i mean for example.. everyone has a limit when it comes to people behaving like children.

it reminds me of doctors and lawyers in the states (from what i heard from) nowadays, its so hard becoming a lawyer simply because one mistake can ruin your career. doctors included there as well. i believe there should be an allowance of human error "within compassionate and understanding level of course". that is why when you an ailment in the states, the doctors will make your go through countless of scans and test to make sure they are not wrong with thier diagnosis and waste also the patients money. this is what i heard from my sister (who is studying here to become a doctor and will hopfully go to the states to finish her studies as well)

Let me clear something up,

There's no such thing as freedom of speech anymore...

Awg, this guy will have a new job elsewhere before you know it... There are always those who support his actions 100% in their own twisted logic and will make a big deal out of it to recruit him as a personal security guard; and they'll probably offer him a higher salary than he'd ever have dreamed of at his older job. He's about the last person in the world I'd think whose future job perspectives are bad.

I suppose it was more convenient for the mall management to fire the guard than to take responsibily for this akward story.

BTW how can a "Peace" t-shirt be "apparal message"

<font color=deeppink>Well throwing out customers on the basis of clothes is a very strange code for a mall. Therefore I am glad that the charges have been dropped. As for firing the guard, can you spell "scapegoat"? The arrogance of some companies never cease to amaze me. :rolleyes: </font>

Depends on what they´re wearing ( if anything.) ;)

Don't count on it! This area is very hard up for jobs in that range (ie: things that aren't highly technical or specialized), in fact Nacht was almost hired by that company for a job as one of their guards several months ago, but it's a very rough job market here right now.

I don't know if we have all the facts, but I do know of several people (locally) who have lost their jobs for doing nothing wrong by the rules they are supposed to follow. My own best friend was fired several years back when the bank she was head teller at had a rash of bogus checks being cashed by a guy who stole his dad's payroll machine and made out checks to himself. The rules at her bank said she should check HIS identification, which she did. They had a limit on how much cash she could give for one check (in writing) but her bosses had ROUTINELY verbally told her to go to a higher amount before asking for supervisory approval and it had been the norm for her to do so.

When this guy cashed his bogus checks at multiple branches, he HAD identification and WAS the person to whom the checks were made out....so tellers cashed his payroll checks. When the father pressed charges and got angry at the bank (which was the bank he used for business), the banking officials summarily fired all the tellers who had cashed the checks, finding minor reasons in each case. In my friend's case they cited that it was over her limit to cash without approval and refused to acknowledge that in actual bank practice and by verbal order of her superiors, she was doing what was approved in day to day operation of that branch.

FWIW, in this state an employer can fire an employee for any reason or without any specific reason unless they have a written contract (such as government employment). However, when my friend's employer tried to refuse her unemployment coverage after the above incident, she took them to court and won, as the Judge determined that the bank couldn't prove to his satisfaction that they had 'just cause' for firing her and refusing her benefits. She was hired by another bank a few months later and got a much better deal all around so it wasn't a total loss, but it did teach us a lesson in 'employment' law here.

I wish the security guard luck finding work and hope the mall officials realize that they need to have recognizable rules of conduct for their employees and should back those employees as long as they are doing their jobs correctly.

[ 03-24-2003, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

<font color=deeppink>Actually no. I do not believe it depends on what they are wearing so long as it is not in violation with the laws. Wearing shirts with death threats are probably not allowed anyway. ;) As for shopping naked, I do not believe that is fully accepted by the law either. ;)

Dress codes is something entirely different. When going out for a fancy dinner I do support the notion of men having to wear ties etc. You are after all going out to a FANCY dinner and sitting next to a couple in shorts and a T-shirt would be a mood-spoiler. But we are talking about a mall here. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

<font color=deeppink>Actually no. I do not believe it depends on what they are wearing so long as it is not in violation with the laws. Wearing shirts with death threats are probably not allowed anyway. ;) As for shopping naked, I do not believe that is fully accepted by the law either. ;)

Dress codes is something entirely different. When going out for a fancy dinner I do support the notion of men having to wear ties etc. You are after all going out to a FANCY dinner and sitting next to a couple in shorts and a T-shirt would be a mood-spoiler. But we are talking about a mall here. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font></font>[/QUOTE]True, it is still after all the owners of a place to decide (within some limits) what visitors are allowed to wear, or rather not wear, but specific rules and policies that might raise questions or are otherwise out of the normal should be posted by the entrace of the establishment in question.

(God, that was a long sentence!) [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

Well the charges deserved to be dropped because they were ridiculous.

As to this guy getting sacked - what reason did the employers give him? Much as I dislike the American spawned trend of "sue at the drop of a hat", if the implication was not related to performance, and just related to publicity about the case then he has a wrongful dismissal suit. One wonders why he is not pursuing that option, and it is suggestive that the company has other grounds for making the dismissal stick (ie something like incompetence or heavy handedness on the part of the guard).

Am I happy that the charges were dropped - yes, am I happy he is sacked - no, do I want to know the real story - yes.

<font color="plum">According to the reports I have heard, the mall had signs posted at every entrance/exit explaining the new policy - which was put in place after a "peace protest" around Christmas ended up being very disruptive and turning into a "near riot".

I have searched diligently but CANNOT find a story to verify how "out of hand" the Christmas demonstration became... but it was obviously severe enough to prompt the mall to institute this new policy.

Was the policy a "knee jerk" reaction by the mall? Quite possibly. There are also charges that the mall only enforced the policy on those wearing "anti-war" shirts. People wearing "pro-war" shirts were apparantly not asked to remove their shirts or leave - or so the critics claim.

Like I said, I couldn't find a story to verify the accusations for either side on that issue.</font>

That's pretty insulting, dont you think Groj? There's nothing 'twisted' about what this guy did. He just did his job! He enforced the policy of the mall! You know, I almost had a job at Crossgates, doing security. Now, considering what you know of me, if I had been the guy who just got fired for doing **what I'm supposed to do**(enforcing the policies of the management of the mall), would you be so cavalier about it? Would you think that I was 'twisted'(LOL...Not that I'm not twisted...but that's only in my private life :D [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] )? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

AFA him finding a job quickly...let me tell ya, it ain't easy around here! Unemployment is high if you're not in the high tech field, or doing something specialized. Not to mention the fact that, in the state of NY, you have to be certified to be a Security Guard(yes, even one at the Mall). And if this puts a black mark on the guy's job history(BTW, Crossgates contracts their security to an outside company, and that company is bonded, so the job history of it's guards is very important), then he's done AFA the security industry is concerned.

As for someone hiring him on personally, well...that's pretty silly Groj. It's not like the guy went all Rambo and pistol whipped the T-Shirt idiot. He just politely asked him to leave, then called the police and signed the complaint. If I were hiring someone as a *personal* bodyguard, then I would surely want the bruiser/Rambo type, not someone who's only claim to fame is ousting a guy and his kid for wearing an inappropriate T-Shirt. [img]tongue.gif[/img] ;)

Anyway...I just find it objectionable, in general, that a person can do his/her job, and be fired just to cover the ass of some stupid mall. My heart goes out to the guard and his family, and I hope that the guy does get a good job soon.

Just wanted to say also that I agree with the last paragraph 1000%! There is NOTHING worse, IMO, than working for an employer that will not back you up when the chips are down. Companies wonder why there's no job/employee loyalty anymore? *Points to current topic* 'Nuff said!

<font color="plum">AAAAARRRRRGGHHHH!!!! {bangs head against wall - then waits for "little stars" to disappear before continuing}

The POLICY may have been ridiculous...but the charges were NOT!!!

There has been much speculation to the actions and motives of both parties in this incident...so let's look at what we actually know occurred.

1. Stephen Downs and his son went to Crossgates Mall WITHOUT the controversial "Peace T-shirts" - so they were wearing regular shirts when they went in.

2. As the entered the mall, they passed a sign explaining the mall's new policy regarding "potentially offensive message apparal". Whether they actually read the signs or not is unknown...but both claimed they were NOT aware of the policy.

3. While shopping in the mall, they stop at a store that makes custom T-shirts. They each decide to have a shirt made that reflects their views of the impending War with Iraq.

4. After having the new shirts made, father and son put their brand new shirts on. It is unknown if they took their other shirts off (which meant they would have had to use a dressing room or bathroom to change) or if they just put the new shirts on over the top of the old ones. It doesn't really matter. What is important is that they DID put the new shirts on immediately and that they also had another shirt with them to wear.

5. Robert Williams (the mall security guard) and his partner see Stephen Downs and his son wearing these new shirts in the Food Court area and decide to "observe them".

6. After a few minutes, Williams and his partner approach the two men because they claim the two were "bothering other customers". Unfortunately, there have been no specific details provided as to exactly what behavior they were exhibiting that qualified as "bothering other patrons".

7. Robert Williams and his partner approach the two men, explain the mall's new policy, and ask them to remove their new shirts. This makes the argument of the Downs not seeing the signs at the entrance a moot point. The policy has now been explained to them by an authorized representative of the mall...and they have been asked to comply with the policy.

8. The younger Downs agrees to remove his shirt, but his father does not. He refuses to remove his shirt even though he has been told it violates mall policy. Given his refusal, Robert Williams follows established protocol and asks Mr. Downs to leave the premises if he won't remove his shirt. This is ALSO met with refusal. So now Mr. Downs is being "confrontational" with the security guard in the middle of the Food Court (creating a fair spectacle in the process).

9. Since Stephen Downs refuses to comply with mall policy AND refuses to leave the premises (which is private property), Robert Williams now has no other choice but to call the local police and have Mr. Downs arrested for trespassing.

And THAT is what he was charged with - TRESPASSING!! NOT "wearing an offensive shirt". </font>

<font color="plum">You have GOT TO BE KIDDING, <font color="orange">Davros</font>!!! [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] <font color=lavender>Cloudy</font> listed another example of a close friend and several of her colleagues that were fired - even though they were following established policies by their employer. Out of all those fired, only ONE decided to pursue the issue in court. So - by your logic - the others must have actually been guilty of other offensives.

I'm disappionted you would use the "guilty by default" argument, <font color=orange>Davros</font>. I really expected better than that from you.

My own home state has the same "policy" regarding employers. They can terminate your employment without giving any solid reason. All they have to do is say that "your services are no longer needed" and *POOF* - you're history.

I have had this happen twice and my wife had it happen once to her. Trust me, there is NO RECOURSE in this situation. In the first instance, I had called in sick. My symptoms were so severe that I could barely get out of bed. When I called in, I was told to report to the bosses office immediately. I was then fired - even though I still had over a week of "sick time" that I had not used. In the other two instances, my wife and I had both found other jobs and were terminated immediately when we turned in our advance notice that we would be leaving.

So - just because the guard isn't automatically sueing does NOT mean that he must be guilty of other offenses.</font>

Actually, according to private property laws, it is *ENTIRELY* up to the owners of the mall what they allow or disallow in terms of dress, provided they dont violate any state or federal anti-discrimination laws. If the owners of the mall said that all males must wear ties and all females must wear skirts, then they would be completely within their rights, and would also be within their rights to kick you out/refuse you service if you didn't comply with their dress regulations. Of course, you're also free to tell them to stick it where the sun doesn't shine and shop elsewhere. But, if you're in their mall, which *IS* private property, despite what some people may think, then you have to abide by their rules, of you can be asked to leave.

[img]graemlins/agree.gif[/img]

What he said!

*hands Cerek a band-aid and some ointment for his forehead* [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yep. Politics politics politics. The mall is under no legal obligation to allow you freedom of speech on its property. If it wants to make nose-rings a cause for ejectment it can. It owns its property and it is a free country. But, it saw a public backlash looming. Politics.

"Insulting"? You're using that word a bit too easily lately, Jim... ;) And once again you misunderstood my post as well. I never said the security guard's logic was twisted, I was referring to the logic behind banning those t-shirts and making a big deal out of it, and the fact that there are most likely people out there who actually would have enforced the same ridiculous rules if they had owned the mall (granted, my post was a bit vague, but I did say "their logic", not "his logic" ;) ).

I hope you're not serious about that Rambo bit, because that's not what I was hinting at at all. Anyways, I'll try to clarify the second part of my initial post.
Thing is, this case seemed to have made it to worldwide media coverage; the fact that the guy was fired has caused some serious distress, especially with those who initially took the side of the mall in this case (or, technically, took the side against mr. Downs :rolleyes: ). If I read some of the dismayed replies here and try to picture some of the other responses in the US, I think this could actually turn mister Williams into some sort of martyr to some of those who'd rather put more of the blame on mr Downs than on the mall for him being fired, if Robert Williams plays his cards right. And that's why I said I wasn't too worried about his job prospections.
Of course I'm aware of the current problems on the job market in the US, but with the above described reasoning, I don't think it's an issue here.

[ 03-24-2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

My dear friend Cerek - the charges were ridiculous and my beief in that remains - hope your forehead gets better soon though.

As to your accusation of guilt by default, I think my first sentence summed that up - I don't support the dismissal of the guy I would like to know the reasoning given by the employers for dismissal. There is such a thing as wrongful dismissal over here, and one wonders if it is being pursued. If not - one wonders why. That is not a change in position on my part, it is a simple restatement. I don't see that my original post was so much deeper than all teh others that it required a 2000 word reply with "you have got to kidding" clauses everywhere, but I respect your right to your opinion [img]smile.gif[/img] .

<font color="plum">Technically, there was only one "you have got to be kidding" phrase. :D As for the "2000 word reply", I am also discussing/debating this same issue with my private e-mail circle and I was becoming tired of "re-stating" my reasoning in both threads. I had given this "point by point" analysis in my private thread and I did a "cut-n-paste" so that I could fully explain MY reasoning on the issue once and for all. It didn't have as much to do with your thread in particular as it did with me wanting to present my case in full. Don't worry though...I won't be making any more "mammoth posts" on this subject. Now that I've stated my case, I won't be repeating my reasoning.

As for the charges being ridiculous, let's change the scenario a bit. Suppose the father and son had purchased shirts that said "Smoke Pot" and "Get Stoned" and began wearing those around the mall. Since this activity is illegal, it is very logical to conclude that many of the other patrons would be offended by these messages. And - First Amendment notwithstandng - the mall would be well within their rights to ask them to either remove the shirts or vacate the premises.

The "policy" of the mall may have been ridiculous...but the guard is not the one who made the policy...he is just the one who is paid to enforce it (whether he agrees with it or not). The ONLY reason this incident gained International attention is because of the particular message he chose. If it had not pertained to such an emotional issue, it would not have been covered outside of Albany....OR if they had said "Nuke Iraq", I daresay that many of the Stephen Down defenders would have applauded the guards actions.

My beef is that the guard was simply doing the job he had been hired (and instructed) to do. When the policy led to some serious negative publicity...then the guard was offered up as a scapegoat....and I also stand firmly by that belief. ;) </font>

<font color="plum">I wanted to deal with the "wrongful dismissal" issue separately since it is something of a "side issue".

We also have "wrongful dismissal" here in America - but in states like North Carolina, Georgia, and (apparantly) New York....it is VERY difficult to win such a case because the law is stacked in favor of the employer.

The proper term for states that allow arbitrary dismissal of employees is "right to work" {yeah, it doesn't make much since to me either - since it really means the employer has the right to NOT let you work}.

<font color=lavender>Cloudy</font> gave a perfect example of several employees from one firm that were "wrongfully dismissed"...yet only one of them had the courage and determination to challenge the decision made by thier employer. Does that mean that the others WERE guilty of policy infractions (and therefore "rightfully dismissed")? Or did the others just not feel like it was not worth the effort to take on a large corporation in a state where the laws favor the employer?

In the examples I listed, I DID go to the local Labor Board when I was fired for calling in sick. However, since I had not yet been with the company for 3 months, the employer basically had the right to fire me without offering any valid reason whatsoever.

In the second case, I had turned in the obligatory 2-week notice to my current employer. The boss didn't say anything to me then. She waited until 11pm that night when I reported for work to tell me "I was no longer needed". I did NOT pursue this incident since I was planning to quit anyway - and I also had a feeling she was going to do exactly what she did...so it wasn't a big surprise.

The incident involving my wife made me the angriest. She was working for a local hospital in their Business Office and had been offered a job at another local hospital. The new job not only payed more, but it was also the same facility where her fiancee' worked (that would be me [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img] ). When she turned in her 2-week notice to her current employer, she was told she would have to work a 4-WEEK notice or forfeit all of her accrued Time Off (which the hospital would have to pay her for if she left). She called her future boss and said she would have to work 2 extra weeks before taking the new job. She then went back to her boss and agreed to work a 4-week notice. As soon as she did that, <font color=yellow>he terminated her on the spot!!!</font>. This meant they did NOT have to pay her for the accrued Time Off (an amount of over $500.00). This was also about 2 months before we got married. We had been counting on that money to help pay for our honeymoon. I went to the Labor Board IMMEDIATELY that time....and got told the same thing I had heard a few years earlier....that the employer has NO obligation to allow an employee to work a notice. They can terminate their employment at any time simply by saying "You're services are no longer needed".

So...JUST because Robert Williams did NOT pursue legal recourse for his firing does NOT imply (in any shape, form, or fashion) that the company must have had other "legitimate" reasons for letting him go.

Oh...BTW....my college roommate and 3 other college buddies sent my wife and I to Disney World for our honeymoon as their wedding gift - so we DID have a Wonderful Honeymoon after all. [img]graemlins/yippee.gif[/img] </font><font color=dodgerblue>{Thanks again V.R.}</font> [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Errr.. Davros....*taps the forum* IS THIS THING ON?! [img]tongue.gif[/img] ;) Guess you missed me telling everyone that in this state and many others, an employer can fire you without even giving a reason and unless you have a contract of employment conditions saying otherwise, you have no recourse, period. An employer can fire an employee without giving cause. If the employee can prove he or she was somehow discriminated against (per federal laws and some state laws) he or she may win a suit, but just saying "gee, my boss gave me no reason for sacking me" gets you zip, zero, nada around here. :(

I'll pipe in here again. I have two professionally trained security personel on my staff. Granted I don't run a mall, but a store inside one.

Due to liability issues, the security gaurds do not eject people from the property or interact with customers in any confrontational way, they stand nearby while a manager executes a trespass notice in a professional and thorough manner.

I deal with an average of 5 ejections week for things like shoplifting, vandalism, and drunkeness. The gaurds say not one word during an ejection and if the "customer" decides to escelate the confrontation, then the gaurd gets the cops and managment informs the "customer" politley that the police are on the way. Of course none of these ejectable offences are as superficial as a slogan on a t-shirt.

My point is by following specific procedures and keeping cool heads 99% of these altercations end with-out an incident.

Of course my store doesn't have a policy that says what a person cannot where on a t-shirt while shopping. If someone told me my tshirt was offensive and I should take it off, I would make quite a scene my self out of a sense of angry justice.

I do not sympathize much with the gaurd. If it was termination with-out cause, then that's usually wrong but he can file for govt cheese unemployment benifits that his former employer's insurance pays for. Companies do pay for wrongful termination by unemployment insurance and have to keep inscrutable records for the goverment to check claims.

If he was fired was for due cause, then he deserved it.

A weighty argument Cerek (or should that be voluminous), but I remain happy with my stance as previously stated.

my question is, what kind of communist mall doesn't let you wear specific apparel into it? You go to a mall to go SHOPPING! I bet they don't have clothing stores >_> ... weird gatted community-type things... I'll never understand them... I wonder what would happen to me if I walked into that mall, now, wearing my "Satan is a Nerd" shirt... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

No kidding, "very rough" is an understatement. Its really an amazing change from a few years ago I remember when the new Walmart around here was forced to delay opening due to staffing shortages, and then started hiring people who failed their drug test.

New York has 'at will' employment, which basicly means they can fire you for no reason, as long as the employer follow all relevent Federal Laws (Discrimination). If you can't prove that your employer did something REALLY bad here, your basicly out of luck.

They aparently had some issues earlier, and they didn't want a repeat.

What communist has to do with that ? I'm really wondering.

No Maarten, I dont think that I am using that word a bit too easily. It *was* insulting, both to the guard(even though he'll likely never read this), and to me, someone who was almost in that guy's shoes. I found(and still find) it rather distasteful that you can have such a cavalier attitude about some poor guy losing his livelihood, just because you disagree with the policy of the mall(namely, the banning of certain T-shirts, something that they are perfectly within their rights to do). You, and several others, seem to be missing the central issue. The security guard was just doing his job, enforcing the policy of the mall's owners. That's it. Yet he's been vilified in the press as some sort of fashion nazi.

Also, just for clarification...The rules put in place by the mall were not ridiculous. The local news, when covering this story, noted that the reason for the policy was based on a near riot around Christmas, when a large group of anti-war protesters were staging a rally at the mall(dont ask me why, that part made NO sense to me), and it got out of control. The mall, again in an attempt to cover it's butt, decided to create a policy that they hoped would prevent such issues from arising again. And again....THIS IS THEIR LEGAL RIGHT! Regardless of your, my, or anyone else's opinion on the subject, it is their right to create and enforce whatever sort of dress code they desire.

Umm...I'm not sure what you mean re: the Rambo comment. I was just making a joke about the guard, and the fact that someone interested in hiring a private bodyguard probably wouldn't be interested in some guy who's only claim to fame was calling the police on some guy and signing a complaint.

AFA the rest...for my own part, I mainly took the side of the guard. He was just doing his job, and I feel badly for the guy.

Personally, I think that the mall created a silly policy as a knee jerk reaction, then, compounded the silliness by having yet another knee jerk reaction when their silly policy bit them on the hindquarters. In both instances, the owners, IMO, made a poor call. BUT!!! CAVEAT!!! It's still their right to do so, last time I checked.

Anyway...I think that you're wrong about the guy being able to come out of this smelling like a rose. He's now, forever, branded as 'the guy who kicked that other guy and his kid out of the mall for wearing a peace t-shirt'. Personally, I hope I'm wrong...but I doubt I will be. :(

EDIT: Spelling errors, and to fix a horribly screwed up quote tag. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-25-2003, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]

I feel really ignorant now, because I hadn't realised the situation was quite this bad. So an employer can really fire someone arbitrarily and usually there's nothing you can do about it?? I have to tell you, the moron that would try to introduce the same thing in Holland would not get very far indeed. Seriously, I think everybody here would be absolutely OUTRAGED if anything like that happened here. Just as we would be outraged if someone was removed from a mall for the text on his T-shirt. Is that really the land of the free? Yeah yeah I get it already, don't jump on me. People are FREE to decide what to do with their private property, including malls. I understand that, even agree with it. Just saying that if any mall owner would be stupid enough to try that trick here, he could wave goodbye to his customers because he wouldn't be getting any. Of course he should have the right to install a rule like that... I'm just saying it would cost him his customers here.
But anyway I'm much more outraged about the employer thing though!! It makes an employee completely dependent on the whims of the employer. I mean, if you know he/she can fire you almost at will, you'll do anything, grovel, do overtime, swallow your own opinion... right? Or is it not that bad? Could someone tell me how things really are, legally speaking? Because if it's really true what I gather from this thread, that is truly horrible!

[ 03-25-2003, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

You think that is bad in Winnipeg a pizza delivery girl was fired for stopping to aid a gun shot victim. The manager fired her for failing to deliver the pizzas on time and said aiding a gun shot victim was no excuse. There was a public outcry and business for the pizza place is now doing not so well.

I don't think the guard should have been fired but the manager who made the crazy rule. It all as to do with how high on the food chain you are not if you are right or wrong.

Well Melusine there are laws were you can bring your employer to court for being improperly fired. You do need to be able to afford a good lawyer however or belong to a union. That is why many of these employers get away with these things as well as most work is now contracted out. However Melusine I believe you live in the freest country in the world the rest of us just like to claim we have freedoms.

[ 03-25-2003, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Yep, sadly enough, it is true Mel. In Idaho we also have the 'right to work' law(we call it the 'right to get screwed' law, and other, less polite things), and it really is true. A business can, and will, fire you for, literally, NO REASON. You can just show up for work one day, and they can tell you "Thanks, but your services are no longer required." That's it, you're gone, have a nice day, and dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Now, theoretically, the reason for the job is to prevent unfair hiring practices, and is also, supposedly, a union busting law. However, like many other laws designed to 'level the playing field', all it ends up doing is giving companies yet ANOTHER way to screw their employees. I've swallowed my opinion, worked "mandatory, voluntary" overtime, and had to shut up and take it in the shorts on more than one occasion, and there wasn't a damn thing I could do about it, except grin and say 'Please sir, may I have some more?'

And you want to know the REALLY sick sad thing???!!!??? That law comes up for repeal about every two years in Idaho...And, for the last 20 years, IT'S BEEN VOTED BACK IN!!! How sad is THAT?? There's always a HUGE media blitz, with doom and gloom predictions spewed out by business' that dont want to lose their ability to stomp on their employees. These companies spend MILLIONS on advertising, and, so far, they've always managed to win...my hope is that, someday, the people in the voting booths will FINALLY wake the hell up and vote to repeal the law.

Erm...AFA the t-shirt thing...Yep, I agree with you on that too. I also think that it was stupid of the mall to ban t-shirts...they should have dealt with the root problem, that of large crowds of protesters gathering on their property. The proper, IMO, solution would have been to forbid protests on their property. Seems simple enough. Instead, they had an infantile, knee-jerk reaction, and this is what they got. Horrid publicity, a possible lawsuit, and some poor guy getting all the blame. And, I would imagine, a sharp drop in their sales. That's pretty much become my opinion BTW...I choose to vote with my wallet. Unless there's a store in Crossgates that I cant find anywhere else, I'm not shopping there, ever! And that's *MY* right. [img]smile.gif[/img]

No Maarten, I dont think that I am using that word a bit too easily. It *was* insulting, both to the guard(even though he'll likely never read this), and to me, someone who was almost in that guy's shoes. I found(and still find) it rather distasteful that you can have such a cavalier attitude about some poor guy losing his livelihood, just because you disagree with the policy of the mall(namely, the banning of certain T-shirts, something that they are perfectly within their rights to do). You, and several others, seem to be missing the central issue. The security guard was just doing his job, enforcing the policy of the mall's owners. That's it. Yet he's been vilified in the press as some sort of fashion nazi.
Also, just for clarification...The rules put in place by the mall were not ridiculous. The local news, when covering this story, noted that the reason for the policy was based on a near riot around Christmas, when a large group of anti-war protesters were staging a rally at the mall(dont ask me why, that part made NO sense to me), and it got out of control. The mall, again in an attempt to cover it's butt, decided to create a policy that they hoped would prevent such issues from arising again. And again....THIS IS THEIR LEGAL RIGHT! Regardless of your, my, or anyone else's opinion on the subject, it is their right to create and enforce whatever sort of dress code they desire.
</font>[/QUOTE]And once again you misunderstood my post. Jim, I'm not sure if you're trying to focus your frustration over this case on just my post now, but I was not saying the things you seem to be claiming that I'm saying about the guard. My criticism is focused on the mall and those who would have enforced the same rules if they had owned the mall... Maybe some of the media vilified him as "some sort of fashion nazi", but I most definitely didn't. And I know it was their legal right to enforce those rules, just like it's my legal right to think that they were silly and laughable, even taking the context into account. And if I read the second part of your post correctly, you seem to hold the same opinion.
But I never commented in any of my posts on the question whether firing him over this is justified or not, yet strangely enough this seems to be your biggest concern with the "cavalier attitude" (?) in my posts. Look, maybe you're just reading too much in my words. All I did was making a prediction on the guard's future and criticise the mall; if you want to argue my opinions, then focus on those two points, not on the "should he have been fired, yes or no?" matter because I simply didn't comment on it. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my purpose with that prediction in my first post, but I was in no way trying to implicate that the mall was right with their decision, because I don't think they were. It was more a response to the cynic way Cerek seemed to be presenting the news (it looked like a slightly bitter reproach with those who criticised the mall to me) than it was a reply to the news itself. Sorry. :(

[ 03-25-2003, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

OK...Perhaps I did read too much into what you said Maarten. I'm sorry about that. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm guessing it's just a language issue again. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm done being ruffled, I promise. :D

Suffice it to say that I think that, on the important points, we agree. The mall's policy was pretty silly and didn't address the true problem. And their firing of the guard was pretty inexcusable. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Seraph- it really is amazing and sad, isn't it? There are a lot of people willing and able to work in our area, who even pass those drug tests these days and they can't find anything, not even part time work! A friend's son-in-law spent months looking for work as a laborer/ warehouse worker, something that used to be available and hiring all the time since it's not the world's most glamorous or well-paying job. Now, even Burger King can be immensely picky about who it hires!!! Used to be they hired a lot of kids in high school and took anyone who could press a cash register button and pick his nose simultaneously [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Mel, it is pretty much that bad. Unless you have a contract with the employer that lists terms of employment and loss thereof, you are at the mercy of the employer. Now, I DO understand the premise of the law. I believe it was to avoid costly and long fights with unions etc over the legitimate firing of an employee, but as others have noted, it now leaves people at the mercy of the hiring officials or their bosses good mood. :(

pritchke, the only way someone could win such a suit is if they could prove that the employer was discriminating against them based on their age, gender, sexual preferences, race, religion, etc.. things that are under federal mandate here. Not easy to prove even when it IS the case. Something I know from long experience where I am. But if there isn't any evidence of that sort of discrimination, the employee will spend a lot of time and money for nothing.

True, Cloudbringer it is very difficult and costly that is why most people do not bother. We have a few more laws up here which protect people from being verbally abused or mistreated by their employer. Problem with those cases though it is usually a my word vs. your word and unless there are witnesses it is basically impossible to win.

examples: Any one being dragged into a office every day just to be told they are a failure and useless, screaming and yelling at the employee telling them they are wrong when they were actually right and no apology afterwards, being asked to do unethical things and being screamed at when you refuse, after awhile such an environment does become difficult to work in with such a manager. - In order to win, write down things said with dates and times, ask to record conversations, or just do it anyway (I don't know if it is legal to record conversations without permission but at least you can embarrass them when they deny having said it). Best case scenario is leave and find another job but if the market is tough than might as well bring down the big guy.

[ 03-25-2003, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

<font color=plum>Did I seem bitter, <font color=orange>Groj</font>? If so, it's because I AM! Primarily because the bulk of the criticism I've seen from those defending Stephen Downs' right to wear his shirt were NOT directed at the mall - they were directed at the security guard. Robert Williams has been called everything from "overzealous" to "Rambo" by those who disagree with his actions...yet there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to support those accusations. And while many people have said they were sorry to hear about Robert Williams being fired...that apology has consistently been followed by something along the lines of "But the charges shouldn't have been brought against Stephen Downs in the first place" (which once again implies that Williams acted inappropriately).

I also can't help but wonder how staunchly Stephen Downs' First Amendment rights would have been defended if he had gotten a T-shirt made that said "NUKE IRAQ". I have a strong feeling that many of those currently supporting Stephen Downs would have been on the other side of the fence and would be saying "Yeah, he has a right to own that T-shirt...but the mall certainly had a right to ask him to remove it."

The thing that upsets me the most is that Robert Williams was fired for doing his job the way he had been told to do it. The mall used him as a scapegoat for their "knee jerk" policy...yet the only thing most people seemed concerned about is the "improper treatment" Stephen Downs received. That's laughable, because if ANYBODY came out of this incident "smelling like a rose" - it was Stephen Downs. All charges were dropped against him, so he never faced the risk of a trial or jail time. He was payed to appear on Inside Edition and he gained his "15 minutes of fame" for becoming a temporary martyr/hero for the First Amendment. Meanwhile, Robert Williams is out of a job in an area where job openings are few and far between and he may not be able to find another job as a security guard due to the "blackmark" that is now on his record.....all because Pyramid Corporation (the owners of the mall) didn't have the backbone to take the flak for THIER policy. The ironic thing is - if Robert Williams had NOT approached Stephen Downs and his son and asked them to remove their shirts - then the mall would actually have had legitimate grounds for dismissing him because they would have documented proof that he failed to enforce the mall's policy.

So Robert Williams was in a No Win situation either way - yet everybody still seems more concerned about the treatment Stephen Downs received.

I sincerely apologize to you <font color=orange>Grojlach</font>, because this rant is NOT directed at you personally. You ARE right, though...this whole stinking incident has made me VERY bitter and I feel very frustrated at the way Stephen Downs has been portrayed as the "innocent victim" in this case. My comments are not directed at you personally. Rather, it is a "venting" of my frustration about this whole case in general. I apologize again if my comments were taken the wrong way.</font>