D
droid
Guest
In a democracy, why should someone lose their job for being a member of a (perfectly legal) political party?
In a democracy, why should someone lose their job for being a member of a (perfectly legal) political party?
I think the argument is that BNP members are racists and most employers have policies against racism.
It is a very dangerous road to go down though - there would have to be proof of actual racism before a dismissal, I would have thought.
You can see that it could very easily shift into there being a list of proscribed political parties or campaigns which preclude you from working in certain areas.
Well, there are lots of perfectly legal acts that I could perform which cause me to lose my job. Also, when you join the prison service you are required to sign a form saying that you are not a member of the BNP (among other things), if you then turn out to be a member then it is a simple case of having lied on your application. Obviously this just moves back the question from whether it's ok to fire people for membership to whether it's ok to to make such a request on joining but at least people know where they stand."In a democracy, why should someone lose their job for being a member of a (perfectly legal) political party?"
Well, there are lots of perfectly legal acts that I could perform which cause me to lose my job.
Also, when you join the prison service you are required to sign a form saying that you are not a member of the BNP (among other things), if you then turn out to be a member then it is a simple case of having lied on your application. Obviously this just moves back the question from whether it's ok to fire people for membership to whether it's ok to to make such a request on joining but at least people know where they stand.
I think that the argument with the police is that membership is not compatible with their mandated commitment to equal rights...
Well I don't think going on dissensus when I'm supposed to be working is in breach of any specific part of my contract but it could probably lead to me being disciplined or even sacked."OK - hit me. I'm talking about acts which don't breach your contract (such as membership of a political party)."
Sure. I just think that people can't be surprised to be fired if they've signed something that agrees that they will be fired if they are a member. On the other hand, I can see where you're coming from when you describe it as a thought crime, it's a strange one. In general what you do outside work should have no bearing on your job but suppose I work for a book shop and I also belong to a political party whose single aim is to close all book shops, in that case would my employer have a right to take an interest in my political activity?"Well thats the issue isn't it? is it OK to fire people for being members of a political party?"
Well I don't think going on dissensus when I'm supposed to be working is in breach of any specific part of my contract but it could probably lead to me being disciplined or even sacked.
Sure. I just think that people can't be surprised to be fired if they've signed something that agrees that they will be fired if they are a member.
On the other hand, I can see where you're coming from when you describe it as a thought crime, it's a strange one. In general what you do outside work should have no bearing on your job but suppose I work for a book shop and I also belong to a political party whose single aim is to close all book shops, in that case would my employer have a right to take an interest in my political activity?
suppose I work for a book shop and I also belong to a political party whose single aim is to close all book shops, in that case would my employer have a right to take an interest in my political activity?
Or maybe you joined because you like their annual féte but aren't so keen on the bookshop closing end of things... there's a thousand possibilities there.
Well it wasn't in my contract but that's by the by - the point to me is that your average company does not have rules that cover every eventuality that could arise and there are numerous things that I could do that are not covered but which, if I were to do them, would lead to me being sacked and having no reasonable cause for complaint."Most employers these days have a 'web usage policy' - so yes it could well be a breach of contract or working conditions."
Well, I think that the police position is that the BNP has policies which are racist and which put its members in direct opposition to some of the police's stated rules of practice - namely the equal rights and opportunities bits. If that is the case then the analogy is valid. I guess that the BNP would argue that they are not racist though. Do you know if they have a manifesto and if so what it is?"But is that analogy fair? Does the BNP even have such a specific and quantifiable aim that could make the position you hold in an organisation untenable?"
Of course. But I was assuming the situation where the person held his hand up and said "yeah, I'm a member but you still can't fire me" - the denial situation is a different but still relevant question. I'm not arguing by any means that anyone who is on that list should automatically be fired from whatever job they hold."Even in that case you could argue (as has been argued with the BNP) that you joined as part of research on a story you were doing. Or that you were duped into joining, or it was a practical joke by a friend etc."
I think that if you join an organisation which very clearly exists for one specific aim then it's not unreasonable to assume that you are in agreement with that aim. Probably worth considering when you join up, however tempting that fete is."Or maybe you joined because you like their annual féte but aren't so keen on the bookshop closing end of things... there's a thousand possibilities there."
I guess that the BNP would argue that they are not racist though. Do you know if they have a manifesto and if so what it is?
I think that if you join an organisation which very clearly exists for one specific aim then it's not unreasonable to assume that you are in agreement with that aim. Probably worth considering when you join up, however tempting that fete is.
Statistically speaking it would be disproportionate unless the officer was stopping about 50 times as many white men.For example - if a BNP member of the Police stops and searches 4 times as many white men than black - is that because he is BNP racist or Police racist?
I think that you could argue that "rights for whites" contradicts the stuff about treating everybody the same. Tricky one again though, if you replaced the word "white" in that sentence with any other grouping it wouldn't be a sackable offence.Iirc it is couched in terms like "rights for whites". Is that racist?
That sounds like a terrible fete to me."But what if it's a really good féte, with fireworks, three legged races and nice food?"
Well, no. I think it's more nuanced than that in that at one extreme you have the one issue party (the closing bookstore party say) and at the other end you have a thing such as the Labour Party that has a more complex manifesto and also takes other actions that are not in its manifesto. Joining the closing bookstore party means you want bookstores to close whereas by being a Labour party member you are showing fairly strong agreement with the manifesto but you haven't signed up to all the laws they enact in their term in power which you (and they) weren't aware of at the time you joined. The BNP is somewhere on the scale between the single issue party and the Labour party but in my opinion I think it's fairly clear as to what you are signing up to if you become a member."But seriously - do Labour party members support increased privatisation, denial of human rights and the rampant bombing and invasion of other countries?"
Yeah, I agree. I seem to have found myself arguing for the sacking of BNP members here which wasn't exactly what I intended. I can see how an argument could be made for it is what I'm saying but I do feel the force of the objections you are raising about thought crimes and about it would be almost criminalising a political party that is in some sense deemed legitimate. Something that it is easy to be happy about when it's a party you hate but which might have dangerous ramifications."Point taken about the Police - but I still think you'd have to actually prove that an act of racism occurred (a practical impossibility in this case I know...), or more pertinently, that an act of racism was the result of attitudes that are evidenced by membership of the BNP, rather than yer garden variety institutionalised Police racism."
Statistically speaking it would be disproportionate unless the officer was stopping about 50 times as many white men.
Yeah, I agree. I seem to have found myself arguing for the sacking of BNP members here which wasn't exactly what I intended. I can see how an argument could be made for it is what I'm saying but I do feel the force of the objections you are raising about thought crimes and about it would be almost criminalising a political party that is in some sense deemed legitimate. Something that it is easy to be happy about when it's a party you hate but which might have dangerous ramifications.
That sounds like a terrible fete to me.