By Bruce Barry April 2 at 10:45 AM <\/p>\n
A lot of ink has been spilled in recent days over Indianas new religious objection law. Some business owners say they need to safeguard First Amendment rights to religious expression, while opponents vilify it as a pretext for discrimination. Rather fewer people pay attention to the rights of business employees to express their beliefs. What happened recently to Shanna Tippen of Pine Bluff, Ark. reminds us that most American workers dont have a right to express themselves without being fired. <\/p>\n
Tippen, a minimum wage motel employee at a Days Inn in Pine Bluff, agreed to be interviewed for a Washington Post story in mid-February about Arkansas newly enacted 25-cent minimum wage hike and its effect on the working poor. Tippen shared some details of her challenging household economics with The Posts Chico Harland, and also mentioned that she was one of the many who signed petitions to get the minimum wage hike on the Arkansas ballot last year. <\/p>\n
This week brought a dispiriting follow-up story: Tippen called Harlan to share the news that she was fired by the owner of the motel for talking to The Post. Realizing that journalists often run the risk of unintentionally influencing events in a story they cover, Harlan lamented that writing about Tippens plight may have made her situation worse. <\/p>\n
[After a story is published, a minimum wage worker loses her job] <\/p>\n
Harlan heard a different story from the Days Inns general manager Herry Patel, who claims that Tippen wasnt fired, but instead walked out after a disagreement. However, Patel had also called Tippen stupid for talking to The Post, had told Harlan that he thought the wage hike was bad for Arkansas because everybody wants free money in Pine Bluff, and subsequently threatened Harlan with a lawsuit if the story ran. Even if the general managers story is as he claims it is, the more important point about American law is that he could have fired Tippen for talking to The Post, with no legal repercussions. <\/p>\n
Many people assume that First Amendment rights to free expression should insulate them from punishment by their employer for speech off the job that has little or nothing to do with work. In one national survey, 96 percent said firing a worker for expressing political views with which the employer disagrees with is unacceptable. Unfortunately, many workers mistakenly assume that unacceptable equals protection: in that same survey, 80 percent said (incorrectly) that its illegal to fire someone for expressing contrary political views. <\/p>\n
The employment-at-will system that dominates labor law in the U.S. lets an employer fire a worker for just about any reason (or no reason) without legal liability. There are several exceptions, most notably bans on discrimination, as well as employment contracts that limit causes for termination. There is also a public policy exceptionwhich suggests that workers should not be subject to a punitive action by an employer that would be an affront to public interest. For example, workers should not be fired for refusing to commit perjury at their employers request or for taking time off for jury duty. It would violate the public interest if employees could be fired for doing these things. <\/p>\n
Arkansas is an employment-at-will state, along with every other state except (oddly) Montana. Shanna Tippen, like most American workers is employed at-will, which means that she can be fired for expressing an opinion to a reporter or to a friend or a stranger or a brick wall for that matter. She would have some protectionand possibly a wrongful termination claimif she had a public sector job. In the private sector, however, First Amendment rights for individual workers to keep their jobs dont exist. <\/p>\n
The most plausible reason that most Americans disapprove of firing people for their political views and indeed believe that it is illegal is that they think that free expression is in the public interest. Healthy democracy should allow people to engage in politics and say what they like without fearing that they will lose their jobs for saying something that their employer doesnt like. There are a few states where political activity does get some protection from an employers wrath, even in the private sector. California, for instance, bars employers from restricting or controlling workers political activity off the job. A few states have broad-based lifestyle discrimination statutes preventing employers for penalizing workers for anything they do off the job that is legal, as long as it doesnt create a conflict of interest or hamper the employees ability to do the job. Unfortunately, Tippen doesnt live in one of those states, so if she was fired for talking to a reporter about her life on the minimum wage and her views on the law, she has no recourse. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See more here: By Bruce Barry April 2 at 10:45 AM A lot of ink has been spilled in recent days over Indianas new religious objection law. Some business owners say they need to safeguard First Amendment rights to religious expression, while opponents vilify it as a pretext for discrimination Continue reading
\nMonkey Cage: Businesses First Amendment rights dont extend to their employees<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"