Muslims, Political Correctness, and the Juan Williams saga

[sirkickyass]

I've asked this question a couple times but Hopper doesn't respond:

"If NPR no longer desires Williams services are they obligated to continue to put him on the air?"

 

[Hopper]

I've asked this question a couple times but Hopper doesn't respond:

"If NPR no longer desires Williams services are they obligated to continue to put him on the air?"

I don't know, Kicky, that would depend on the wording of their contract. As has been noted, he was an independent contractor for NPR, not a staff employee, and, as such, was not subject to their jurisdiction when working in other venues, per the NPR ombudsman.

But, let's leave that aside and say "Hell, no! He's an at-will employee and they have the right to fire him at any second for NO reason whatsoever, if they choose."

That's not the issue here, as I have said before. Why do you even ask it?

 

[sirkickyass]

I don't know, Kicky, that would depend on the wording of their contract. As has been noted, he was an independent contractor for NPR, not a staff employee, and, as such, was not subject to their jurisdiction when working in other venues, per the NPR ombudsman.

I think you're actually intepreting this wrongly. The independent contractor status gives him fewer legal protections (and more freedoms, like his Fox News appearances), not more. As you indicate though, that's neither here nor there. I only mention this because you've stated this as fact several times.

But, let's leave that aside and say "Hell, no! He's an at-will employee and they have the right to fire him at any second for NO reason whatsoever, if they choose."

That's not the issue here, as I have said before. Why do you even ask it?

Because it seems as if your analysis is entirely one-sided (which you accuse Eric of doing). The only true remedy would be for Williams to be un-fireable, in essence a tenure system. While you seem very intent on focusing on the rights of the individual to say whatever he wants regardless of how his employer will feel it affects his ability to do his job you seem to be according zero weight to the right of the organization to only employ (and pay) those whom they want representing the organization.

The question is designed to ask why you're giving zero weight to one side of the scale.

When I say that ombudsman's stance is reasonable what I mean is that she, in both posts, sets it up as a balancing test. While acknowledging that Williams brings good things to the table, at some point in time it has to be determined whether he's "more trouble than he's worth." I don't have to deal with him; NPR does and so I'm comfortable letting them determine at what point the scale tips one direction.

 

[Hopper]

The independent contractor status gives him fewer legal protections (and more freedoms, like his Fox News appearances), not more. As you indicate though, that's neither here nor there. I only mention this because you've stated this as fact several times.

That statement, as a blanket claim, is WRONG. I only mention this because it's inaccurate.

 

[Hopper]

Because it seems as if your analysis is entirely one-sided (which you accuse Eric of doing). The only true remedy would be for Williams to be un-fireable, in essence a tenure system. While you seem very intent on focusing on the rights of the individual to say whatever he wants regardless of how his employer will feel it affects his ability to do his job you seem to be according zero weight to the right of the organization to only employ (and pay) those whom they want representing the organization.

The question is designed to ask why you're giving zero weight to one side of the scale.

When I say that ombudsman's stance is reasonable what I mean is that she, in both posts, sets it up as a balancing test. While acknowledging that Williams brings good things to the table, at some point in time it has to be determined whether he's "more trouble than he's worth." I don't have to deal with him; NPR does and so I'm comfortable letting them determine at what point the scale tips one direction.

Kicky, let me say it again. I didn't start this thread for the purpose of discussing the nuances of "corporate rights." I don't give a rat's *** about that, as a topic of discussion. As I said before, when I asked if NPR was "right" in firing Williams, I was NOT asking "Do they have the right."

 

[sirkickyass]

That statement, as a blanket claim, is WRONG. I only mention this because it's inaccurate.

As a blanket claim maybe. I'm sure there are exceptions.

But as a general matter I'm pretty sure it's accurate.

For example, independent contractors aren't covered by federal OSHA laws, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, the WARN act, the Family Medical Leave Act, in most instances COBRA coverage provisions, and unemployment insurance and workers comp. payments. That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.

 

[sirkickyass]

Kicky, let me say it again. I didn't start this thread for the purpose of discussing the nuances of "corporate rights." I don't give a rat's *** about that, as a topic of discussion. As I said before, when I asked if NPR was "right" in firing Williams, I was NOT asking "Do they have the right."

Let me rephrase then:

If NPR determines that Williams is "more trouble than he's worth" is it in the right to cease employing him?

 

[Hopper]

As a blanket claim maybe. I'm sure there are exceptions.

But as a general matter I'm pretty sure it's accurate.

For example, independent contractors aren't covered by federal OSHA laws, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, the WARN act, the Family Medical Leave Act, in most instances COBRA coverage provisions, and unemployment insurance and workers comp. payments. That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.

Well, sure, I agree with all that. But when you said "protection" I was assuming you meant protection from "arbitrary termination." The Ombudsman has indicated that Williams had a term contract (for a specified period of time). Those kinda things cannot just be unilaterally terminated, at will.

 

[Hopper]

Let me rephrase then:

If NPR determines that Williams is "more trouble than he's worth" is it in the right to cease employing him?

Not in my book. To me "right" exists independently of what NPR determines. It could be right, could be wrong. But, even as phrased, "more trouble than its worth" is such a vague, subjective standard, that I wouldn't even proceed along those lines.

 

[sirkickyass]

Well, sure, I agree with all that. But when you said "protection" I was assuming you meant protection from "arbitrary termination." The Ombudsman has indicated that Williams had a term contract (for a specified period of time). Those kinda things cannot just be unilaterally terminated, at will.

I think you're making assumptions about the terms of his contract. We don't have that kind of information available to us. It's possible, for example, that his compensation was non-guaranteed. We just don't know.

When I say he doesn't have the same kind of protections because he's an independent contractor I'm referring specific protections given to employees under Federal and local (probably Washington D.C.) law. For instance it's a lot harder to make out discrimination claims and the like against someone if you're classified as an independent contractor, which I believe you would count as part of your "arbitrary termination" classification of protections.

Some of the laws I mentioned, specifically WARN and the FMLA, contain provisions that certainly provide protections against termination in certain circumstances. Independent contractors don't have access to those provisions.

Some employers are notorious for trying to classify as many employees as possible as independent contractors rather than employees precisely to limit legal liabilities and duties.

A quick, but probably helpful, FAQ on the differences can be found here: https://www.workplacefairness.org/contractors

 

[sirkickyass]

Not in my book. To me "right" exists independently of what NPR determines. It could be right, could be wrong. But, even as phrased, "more trouble than its worth" is such a vague, subjective standard, that I wouldn't even proceed along those lines.

Then I think that's the entirety of the disagreement. It's not about being overly PC and the like. I don't think NPR is "wrong" to make that judgment call that they would prefer to end the relationship. I would feel differently if I thought one of Mr. William's "rights" had been violated.

 

[Hopper]

I think you're making assumptions about the terms of his contract. We don't have that kind of information available to us. It's possible, for example, that his compensation was non-guaranteed. We just don't know.

No, not really. I already told you that I didn't know if they had the right to fire him under the circumstances because I don't know its terms. I not assuming them. As far as the LENGTH of the contract, the ombudsman said she didn't understand why NPR didn't just wait until it ran out, so it didn't end that day by its own terms.

That said, the vast majority of independent contracts (some NBA contracts aside) give each party binding rights, and a contract for a year is really for a year, not just until one side wants to quit.

 

[The Thriller]

No, not really. I already told you that I didn't know if they had the right to fire him under the circumstances because I don't know its terms. I not assuming them. As far as the LENGTH of the contract, the ombudsman said she didn't understand why NPR didn't just wait until it ran out, so it didn't end that day by its own terms.

Why wouldn't an employer have a right to fire someone? Especially if he clearly did the exact opposite of what they asked?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

What the hell is wrong w/NPR firing Juan? He was more trouble than he was worth. What kind of world are you trying to create Hopper by wanting to take away an employer's right to end employment with employees?
What the hell didn't Juan understand about NPR's request that he stay away from inflammatory remarks and foxnews?

If Juan didn't understand that saying what he did on foxnews wasn't going to carry serious consequences that could lead to his termination with NPR, then he's a complete dumbass.

I don't get what is wrong with any of this. Do what your employer wants/asks. IF you don't like that, then find another job or face the possible consequences.

That's essential to a capitalistic... Or perhaps ANY society.

 

[Hopper]

Then I think that's the entirety of the disagreement. It's not about being overly PC and the like. I don't think NPR is "wrong" to make that judgment call that they would prefer to end the relationship. I would feel differently if I thought one of Mr. William's "rights" had been violated.

Well, mebbe at some point, some poster will want to discuss the real underlying issues, rather than legal rights.

 

[sirkickyass]

That said, the vast majority of independent contracts (some NBA contracts aside) give each party binding rights, and a contract for a year is really for a year, not just until one side wants to quit.

Sure. They also have liquidated damages clauses. So Williams doesn't have the "right" to work at NPR, but NPR can, in effect, buy him out by paying the damages specified in the clause.

But again, we're in the realm of speculation, we don't know what his specific contract said.

 

[The Thriller]

I just don't get why Hopper believes than Juan should receive a different set of rights than anyone else here.

Interesting.

 

[Hopper]

Why wouldn't an employer have a right to fire someone? Especially if he clearly did the exact opposite of what they asked?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

Thriller, that is not the issue in this thread, and I, personally, don't care to discuss it with you at length (although someone else might). To briefly respond, the relationship between two parties to a services contract is NOT an employer/employee relationship.

 

[Hopper]

Sure. They also have liquidated damages clauses. So Williams doesn't have the "right" to work at NPR, but NPR can, in effect, buy him out by paying the damages specified in the clause.

But again, we're in the realm of speculation, we don't know what his specific contract said.

Heh, lotta equivation here revolving aroung the word "right," here. There is no reason to assume a liquidated damages clause, because that is far from standard. Under normal circumstances, a contract "employee" has the "right" to continue working, even if his "employer" orders him off the premises. Such a violations of his "rights" generally results in a damage award for breach of contract, but it does NOT end his rights under the contract.

Likewise, Williams can breach and refuse to come to work. Constitutionally (involutary servitude, and alla that there), they can't FORCE him to work, as a remedy. But they still have the right to "demand" his services and will be compensated if he refuses.

 

[sirkickyass]

Heh, lotta equivation here revolving aroung the word "right," here. There is no reason to assume a liquidated damages clause, because that is far from standard. Under normal circumstances, a contract "employee" has the "right" to continue working, even if his "employer" orders him off the premises. Such a violations of his "rights" generally results in a damage award for breach of contract, but it does NOT end his rights under the contract.

Likewise, Williams can breach and refuse to come to work. Constitutionally (involutary servitude, and alla that there), they can't FORCE him to work, as a remedy. But they still have the right to "demand" his services and will be compensated if he refuses.

Now we have a dispute as to what is "standard." I will say every contract for contract attorneys that gos out of my office contains either a) a terminable for cause clause or b) a liquidated damages clause.

Obviously we're all guessing. There's no reason to even assume that Juan Williams had a standard contract given that his job is/was far from "standard" work.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Heh, lotta equivation here revolving aroung the word "right," here. There is no reason to assume a liquidated damages clause, because that is far from standard. Under normal circumstances, a contract "employee" has the "right" to continue working, even if his "employer" orders him off the premises. Such a violations of his "rights" generally results in a damage award for breach of contract, but it does NOT end his rights under the contract.

Likewise, Williams can breach and refuse to come to work. Constitutionally (involutary servitude, and alla that there), they can't FORCE him to work, as a remedy. But they still have the right to "demand" his services and will be compensated if he refuses.

So what yer sayin is that Kicky is pro-slavery? The bigot.