Cargill fires employee over political sign

[Adam]

At first, I assumed this was yet another case of a simple incident being misunderstood and reaching urban "ain't PC awful" legend status, given that I could only find reference to it in WorldNutDaily and assorted rightwing blogs, but this article appears legit.

Even with the article in a real news source, I'm still a bit amazed that a corporation would actually fire anyone in a dispute over their political beliefs. Officially, he was fired for insubordination, so I'm assuming that things got nasty when he was asked to take his signs off his vehicle, but I'm still having a hard time picturing things reaching that point, based on my experiences with various corporate HR departments. At any rate, while I personally think it's asinine that he would even be asked to remove the signs in the first place, it's Cargill's right to fire who they please. Perhaps Mr. Padilla might take a moment to consider the irony in his having lost his job due to discrimination against his political view that discrimination based on sexual orientation is fine.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Richmond Times-Dispatch

According to Cargill, Padilla showed up to work Oct. 4 with two signs on his truck. Both encouraged voters to support the amendment, which would limit marriage in Virginia to one man and one woman.

Everybody else will then get to par-tay down!

The debauchery which follows will convince other states to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Soon there will only be 100 married people in the US!

Hey, baby, what's your sign?

[California Tanker]

I'm generally in agreement with you. I would think that the employer could fire him for wearing the wrong colour socks if instructed to do otherwise. I guess there are two other things to consider: Can a bumper sticker on an employee's car be construed as making a statement of the employer's position on an issue? The other question might be if any of the other employees have any politically motivated bumper stickers on their cars, and if not, is it fair to single out certain ones?

Business decisions based on political preference aren't new, usually it's a case of people boycotting a company on the basis of their practises, but I think it's close enough that it can work the other way: An employer can boycott an employee (i.e. fire him) for his own political preferences if expressed and if in disagreement. Call it his own version of free speech.

All in all, I think it's stupidity on both sides. All legal, but really not particularly clever.

NTM

[ms_ann_thrope]

Originally Posted by Adam

Perhaps Mr. Padilla might take a moment to consider the irony in his having lost his job due to discrimination against his political view that discrimination based on sexual orientation is fine.

Just desserts.

Actually, Adam, do you think it was so much over his political beliefs as it was over the potential eyesore caused by the signs? I'm thinking that had this been a bumpersticker, there wouldn't have been any kerfuffle. Signs are another story --- I can understand an employer not wanting potential customers or vendors seeing that kind of crap in their parking lot, regardless of the message. Not great for business.

[Adam]

Hey! No fair editing while I'm responding! It confuses me when I hit the quote button and don't see anything, so I hit back to verify the text I think should be there, then hit quote again and still don't see it!

Originally Posted by California Tanker

The other question might be if any of the other employees have any politically motivated bumper stickers on their cars, and if not, is it fair to single out certain ones?

That's a good point. If the company doesn't allow any other poltiical slogans either, I'd be more inclined to say their actions were fair, if a bit silly. I can't find any clarification on that, or much off anythgi nelse, though. The details are sort of murky. It seems that, according to a couple of sources, Mr. Padilla had a similar slogan on his vehicle, was asked to remove it, did so, and then promptly replaced it with the one he was eventually fired over. I suspect the 'now I'm in compliance, now I'm not' act is part of the justification for the supposed insubordination that led to his firing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

Actually, Adam, do you think it was so much over his political beliefs as it was over the potential eyesore caused by the signs? I'm thinking that had this been a bumpersticker, there wouldn't have been any kerfuffle. Signs are another story --- I can understand an employer not wanting potential customers or vendors seeing that kind of crap in their parking lot, regardless of the message. Not great for business.

No idea, but that's quite possible. I'm kind of interested to see Cargill's actual policy here.

[JackDog]

Welty described Padilla as a quiet husband and father of two who just wanted to express his opinion. ... "He's not shy about expressing his belief, but he's not one to get in your face," Welty said.

Bullshit. If you want to express your opinion, put a bumper sticker on your car. This guy wanted to get in people's faces with his message of hate.

[Sock Puppet]

Sounds to me like he was fired not for his political views, but for just being an asshole.

[ms_ann_thrope]

Well, here's a picture I found of Mr. P. and his truck (from WorldNutDaily):


It's totally not as horrible a display as I was imagining (I was thinking something more like this), but I'm still going to have to agree with the premise that a dude who works in the company's HR department should not be promoting intolerance at the workplace.

[viscousmemories]

Keep in mind that after having initially complied with Cargill's demand that he remove the signs:

He came back the next day with them, and he didn't park in the parking lot, but he parked by the front gate," said Klein, pointing out the area still is considered company property.

[Ensign Steve]

That's it? "Please vote for marriage on Nov 7" on his back window? It's election time. The landscape is littered with signage asking us to vote a certain way. IMO, if it's on the ballot, it's legitimate.

[Freddy]

I do not agree with his message, but is that a reason for management to get all hot and bothered over. The fact that he was not on company property, did not commit a crime, do an immoral act , or promote his view vocally I have a hard time supporting management. Well I never support management.

[viscousmemories]

He was on company property both times, but regardless of the specifics deliberately defying your boss will get you fired more often than not.

[quiet bear]

Well, this is merely an assumption, but since he hasn't been employed with them but for 5-6 months, my guess is, they were just looking for a reason to get rid of him. This is probably the latest in a string of sh*t stirring for this guy. All assumptions on my part, of course.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out why he couldn't be reached for comment. He's hunkered down with people who are building his case. We haven't heard the last of this. All the dirt will come to light in time.

[D. Scarlatti]

What case? I would imagine he's an at-will employee and, as such, fucked (i.e., at-will unemployed).

[quiet bear]

That's true enough. But there are plenty of people who smell money, and they'll be whispering in his ear. He'll be a pawn in it.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by quiet bear

people who smell money ...

Just say it: lawyers.

[Plant Woman]

This guy looks like he is Latin American, or Puerto Rican perhaps? If he is, I am always amazed when someone from a group that is commonly dicriminated against, chooses to also discriminate against another.

[Dingfod]

At my previous employer's place of business, I was threatened with termination because I refused to cinch my necktie up tight. I made some comment about getting fired not for refusing to wear a necktie, but for refusing to have it cinched up uncomfortably tight. My boss said, "No, if you get fired, it will be for insubordination." "Oh, that's different."

In a moment of karma, that boss ended up getting forced to retire early after he was caught cavorting with an HR rep during lunch hour, by her husband. The boss that replaced him rid us of those symbols of oppression, he didn't see that it made a difference in job performance.

[quiet bear]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Just say it: lawyers.

Not necessarily. There are probably all sorts of groups out there, contacting the guy right now, telling him how he's been wronged, his civil rights violated, blah blah blah. Don't be surprised if Jesse Jackson shows up. You get a couple of signs, a handful of minorities, and especially a camera, and The Good Reverend won't be too far off.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by quiet bear

Don't be surprised if Jesse Jackson shows up. You get a couple of signs, a handful of minorities, and especially a camera, and The Good Reverend won't be too far off.

Heh. That's true. Buddy checks many of his civil rights at the door when he crosses onto his employer's private property, however. Now if he can make a case he got canned on account of his being Puerto Rican, he might be onto something.

eta: lol@Dingfod's signature.

[quiet bear]

That's never stopped RJJ from a photo-op.


*edit* Also, why else do you think RJJ would show up, if not to cry racism? I don't ever recall him needing proof of it.

"Well, can't you people see? This person is a minority!!! What other eason could there be for their firing????? LOL.

[Dingfod]

It's a signature.

[viscousmemories]

I'm confused. How is Jesse Jackson supposed to use this guy to make money for himself?

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

It's a signature.

That's why it's funny. You're the first guy I ever seen use an actual signature for a signature.