Under the doctrine of at-will employment though, it's unfortunately not illegal for your boss to fire you because you pissed off his buddy buddy chum chum, even if he was a sourpuss landlord that got burned for being petty.
If what you're exposing is illegal then it shouldn't matter. Once an elected official decides to break the law, he is no longer entitled to be acting on behalf of the government. There's a doctrine called "ultra vires" which covers this sort of thing, and it can also apply to corporations who act outside the boundaries of their charter.
There's also something called the "stripping doctrine" which effectively rips the veil of government off of an official who goes outside the bounds of the law.
Wikipedia has more information but that's the gist of it.
Private sector employers can fire for any reason at all, including reasons that are blatantly retaliatory (unless the feds say otherwise, such as for a civil rights issue).
Example:
1. You scoop your landlord and beat him to the punch snagging a front row seat to the superbowl. 2. Your landlord decides to go postal and tries to evict you over it. 3. You manage to squash the eviction by showing you haven't broken your lease and exposing that your landlord is a total bullshitter. 4. Your landlord is enraged, but just so happens to be chummy with your boss and knows where you work, so he rats you out to your boss as a bad tenant. 5. Your boss, eager to stick up for his friend, takes it personally and decides to fire you. Conveniently he also tacitly blacklists you whenever anyone else calls him for a reference, which leaves such a crater in your work history that your career is ruined.
All this over a superbowl ticket.
Slippery slope fallacy? Perhaps, but it cannot be denied that this unlikely series of events is at least possible. When emotions are high, you never know just how transitively a grudge can snowball on you, and I have experienced enough bad politics of my own to know that this sort of backscratching and backstabbing actually happens in the real world.
In contrast, at least for the federal government, you have the legal right to appeal any terminations, demotions, or suspensions in excess of 2 weeks. Read up on the merit system thingy, but basically there's a process that puts the burdon of proof on the agency to establish that you deserved the adverse action.
What if the judge uses the appeals process as a crutch to get cases over with in a hurry, but the appeals process uses the lower courts as a presumed good use of judicial discretion?
It's a catch 22. High court trusts low court, low court trusts high court.
I would much rather have no appeals and have each judge be forced to think through each case carefully, with huge penalties if they're proven corrupt or incompetent.
We already saw Koh get fed up with the apple v. samsung suit enough to summary rule on everything and just punt it up to appeals leaving a smoking ruin while they wait in line at appeals court.
For a prospective employer doing a reference check, pissing off your prevoius boss is almost always lethal to your career no matter WHAT actually happened.
Even if your previous boss was a big fat liar and set you up on purpose because of something petty and personal, your next boss won't give a shit. All he'll care about is that your last boss hated your guts and that "oh my there must have been some reason".
Especially if there's a bunch of candidates to choose from that don't have any baggage from previous bosses.
Also, your current boss probably knows this and won't have any problems shitcanning you and badmouthing you tacitly to your next boss if they want to put you in your place, or make you pay for something.
Admit it, bosses are in the upper crust of society and get what they want. Us peons on the bottom of the totem pole get all the crap and the bosses get all the glory.
Oddly though, it's the company's time and money being spent on payroll, so unless workers are actually entitled to a job...
The free market could sort it out just fine if new bosses could enter the market as consumers of labor. If workers could leave bad bosses, it would force employers to compete for talent.
You need freedom on both sides, supply AND demand.
And unfortunately, if being an asshole to your employees is profitable, the market will reward it.
It's not odd at all. It's called the cream rising till it sours.
Don't fight the food chain. If your boss is incompetent, then leave and work somewhere else. If you can't, then it sucks to be you and you need to shut up and work.
Indeed, this is a private affair. Companies are usually allowed to fire whoever they damn well please, for any or no reason. Hell, your boss could be a raiders fan and fire you for a picture of you wearing a steelers jersey.
Company policy doesn't mean a hill of beans. If your boss wants you gone, you are gone, end of discussion from you. The only one who has any say after that is whoever your boss reports to, and so on.
Or basically, respect the fact that your boss is the one with the power and gets to decide who to hire as he darn well pleases.
Like it or not that is unfortunately the reality of an economy where unemployment is high and bosses can get away with being stinkers because they know they can get away with being jerks to people that are expendable.
And if someone is willing to sell his soul to get a job, and you aren't, guess who gets hired?
Slashdot Mirror
And sadly, all lizards are prescreened by the velociraptors that own the soapboxes the lizards use to campaign.
That doesn't change the fact that the corporate owned media gets to screen who gets the airtime they need to reach the public.
If you don't sell your soul to the corporate sector you will never make it past the primaries.
And unlike other elections, you do not get to write-in for the president.
Sadly, the only illegal part is the blacklisting.
Under the doctrine of at-will employment though, it's unfortunately not illegal for your boss to fire you because you pissed off his buddy buddy chum chum, even if he was a sourpuss landlord that got burned for being petty.
And if you're hiding something that will ruin you if it gets out, perhaps you deserve to be broken anyway.
Do I have to go over watergate again?
If what you're exposing is illegal then it shouldn't matter. Once an elected official decides to break the law, he is no longer entitled to be acting on behalf of the government. There's a doctrine called "ultra vires" which covers this sort of thing, and it can also apply to corporations who act outside the boundaries of their charter.
There's also something called the "stripping doctrine" which effectively rips the veil of government off of an official who goes outside the bounds of the law.
Wikipedia has more information but that's the gist of it.
Private sector employers can fire for any reason at all, including reasons that are blatantly retaliatory (unless the feds say otherwise, such as for a civil rights issue).
Example:
1. You scoop your landlord and beat him to the punch snagging a front row seat to the superbowl.
2. Your landlord decides to go postal and tries to evict you over it.
3. You manage to squash the eviction by showing you haven't broken your lease and exposing that your landlord is a total bullshitter.
4. Your landlord is enraged, but just so happens to be chummy with your boss and knows where you work, so he rats you out to your boss as a bad tenant.
5. Your boss, eager to stick up for his friend, takes it personally and decides to fire you. Conveniently he also tacitly blacklists you whenever anyone else calls him for a reference, which leaves such a crater in your work history that your career is ruined.
All this over a superbowl ticket.
Slippery slope fallacy? Perhaps, but it cannot be denied that this unlikely series of events is at least possible. When emotions are high, you never know just how transitively a grudge can snowball on you, and I have experienced enough bad politics of my own to know that this sort of backscratching and backstabbing actually happens in the real world.
In contrast, at least for the federal government, you have the legal right to appeal any terminations, demotions, or suspensions in excess of 2 weeks. Read up on the merit system thingy, but basically there's a process that puts the burdon of proof on the agency to establish that you deserved the adverse action.
In the US, joining the military is a voluntary operation where you give up your rights in exchange for a cut of the DoD payroll budget.
Your argument would hold more water if people were conscripted though.
They should just get it over with and do a labor lottery.
On the upside you won't get dedicated shills. This is presumably the logic behind jury pools.
Glory to Arstotska!
Quite right.
It's just one guy in the totem pole pulling rank over someone below him. This sort of thing happens all the time.
It's one of the perks of authority, being able to do as you like to those below you and get away with it.
The CEO is an ex-Googler. Google takes NDAs and trade secrets very seriously. This is predictable.
If there aren't enough jobs to go around, then yes, either labor is too expensive, or there's a restraint on demand for new workers.
Especially when in grown-up land it really doesn't matter. They can fire you anyway.
What really needs to happen is for it to be illegal to even *attempt* to compel your workers to violate contracts with third parties.
It's against facebook tos to give access to anyone else.
What if the judge uses the appeals process as a crutch to get cases over with in a hurry, but the appeals process uses the lower courts as a presumed good use of judicial discretion?
It's a catch 22. High court trusts low court, low court trusts high court.
I would much rather have no appeals and have each judge be forced to think through each case carefully, with huge penalties if they're proven corrupt or incompetent.
We already saw Koh get fed up with the apple v. samsung suit enough to summary rule on everything and just punt it up to appeals leaving a smoking ruin while they wait in line at appeals court.
Sadly, it usually doesn't matter.
For a prospective employer doing a reference check, pissing off your prevoius boss is almost always lethal to your career no matter WHAT actually happened.
Even if your previous boss was a big fat liar and set you up on purpose because of something petty and personal, your next boss won't give a shit. All he'll care about is that your last boss hated your guts and that "oh my there must have been some reason".
Especially if there's a bunch of candidates to choose from that don't have any baggage from previous bosses.
Also, your current boss probably knows this and won't have any problems shitcanning you and badmouthing you tacitly to your next boss if they want to put you in your place, or make you pay for something.
Admit it, bosses are in the upper crust of society and get what they want. Us peons on the bottom of the totem pole get all the crap and the bosses get all the glory.
Oddly though, it's the company's time and money being spent on payroll, so unless workers are actually entitled to a job...
A vindictive boss may make you quit just so he can get your unemployment claim denied and then squeal about it during reference checks.
Never underestimate the damage that can be done by a boss with an axe to grind.
The free market could sort it out just fine if new bosses could enter the market as consumers of labor. If workers could leave bad bosses, it would force employers to compete for talent.
You need freedom on both sides, supply AND demand.
And unfortunately, if being an asshole to your employees is profitable, the market will reward it.
And by even suing, she's gotten herself blacklisted anyway.
It's not odd at all. It's called the cream rising till it sours.
Don't fight the food chain. If your boss is incompetent, then leave and work somewhere else. If you can't, then it sucks to be you and you need to shut up and work.
Beggars can't be choosers.
Indeed, this is a private affair. Companies are usually allowed to fire whoever they damn well please, for any or no reason. Hell, your boss could be a raiders fan and fire you for a picture of you wearing a steelers jersey.
Company policy doesn't mean a hill of beans. If your boss wants you gone, you are gone, end of discussion from you. The only one who has any say after that is whoever your boss reports to, and so on.
Or basically, respect the fact that your boss is the one with the power and gets to decide who to hire as he darn well pleases.
Like it or not that is unfortunately the reality of an economy where unemployment is high and bosses can get away with being stinkers because they know they can get away with being jerks to people that are expendable.
And if someone is willing to sell his soul to get a job, and you aren't, guess who gets hired?
Flawed or sabotaged?
Unless, as with the hackable door locks, someone sues for a gag order.
You might not owe a corporation favors, but they certainly can try to FORCE you to grant them.
Oh lovely, the copier can not only spy on me, it can actually frame me by number fiddling and handing off bogus evidence to the spooks?
The fact that this is even POSSIBLE makes me worry that there's covert firmware deliberately tampering with things.
First of all, how does it even know what a number *looks like*?
And how the hell does it SWAP numbers?
I've never known decompression artifacts to do that. It's just plain loony.
Something seems decidedly fishy here.
Not to mention there's only one remote that has to be shared with everyone else.
That's the thing about shared TV, you don't get to keep it for yourself.