A Victory for "Freedom of Speech"

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Grojlach: 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.

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 ]

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Stratos: Depends on what they´re wearing ( if anything.)

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]

[Stratos]

Originally posted by WillowIX: Quote: Originally posted by Stratos: Depends on what they´re wearing ( if anything.)

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] [/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]

[Davros]

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.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Stratos: 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]

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.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Grojlach: 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.

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 [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.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: **SNIP** an excellent post that I would simply nod my head along with, since I agree 110%(and I posted something similar to below before I read this) 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.

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!

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Davros: Well the charges deserved to be dropped because they were ridiculous.

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".

Originally posted by Davros: 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).

You have GOT TO BE KIDDING, Davros!!! [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] Cloudy 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, Davros. 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.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Stratos: 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]

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.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: 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!!!

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

What he said!

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