A Victory for "Freedom of Speech"

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by WillowIX: 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.

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.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: 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]

"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" ).

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]

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 ). 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 ]

[Davros]

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] .

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Davros: 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] .

Technically, there was only one "you have got to be kidding" phrase. 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.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Davros: 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]

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}.

Cloudy 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, he terminated her on the spot!!!. 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] {Thanks again V.R.} [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by 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.

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.

[Chewbacca]

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.

[Davros]

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

[/)eathKiller]

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]

[Seraph]

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.

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.

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.

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.

my question is, what kind of communist mall doesn't let you wear specific apparel into it?

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