Should employers be allowed to discriminate on the basis of political views/affiliation?

[PlanetaryOrbit]

I read an Internet comment by a boss who decided to lay off employees based off of whether they had Obama bumper stickers or not (he was laying off employees that did support Obama - again, this was an Internet comment, so take it with several grains of salt), and it got me wondering:


Should employers be allowed to hire, fire, promote, not promote, or otherwise discriminate on the basis of political views or political affiliation?



I understand there may be valid need to do so - why should a liberal political party be required to hire a conservative who doesn't share their views? - but for the most part, should such discrimination be banned?

[unblock]

1. i would say yes. i would want a neo-nazi fired.

except where it's actually work-related, it would be a lousy business decision to hire/fire/promote on the basis of democratic/republican affiliation. but i don't think i'd want the government to prevent an employer from firing a neo-nazi or member of some other abhorrent party.

[merrily]

3. That would be nice but what would permit government to discriminate that way?

[merrily]

2. Tough question. On the one hand, private persons, including employers, have first

amendment rights, including the right of free association. On the other hand, they are engaged in interstate commerce and interfering with the vote undermines our political system.

I have a dim memory of one of my elementary school teachers telling me that, way back in the day, employers would tell their employees, "If so and so wins the election Tuesday, don't bother to come to work Wednesday."

Kinda puts a crimp in the whole democracy illusion.

[Vincardog]

4. Speaking as a Taxpayer and as such an employer of elected Politicians

I say hell yes. As long as the political reasons are clear, public and I am accountable for my actions.

[951-Riverside]

5. It happens anyway...

This is why I keep my political opinions and thoughts inside of my head when at work.

When you go to work and start talking about "Muhammad this", "Jesus that", "Bush this", "Obama that" or whatever hot button issue, you're going to attract a lot of unwanted attention and probably find yourself out of work for something very petty or nothing at all.

Successful employers like Max profits not hostile work environments.

[0rganism]

6. only if it interferes with the employee's ability to do the job

firing for vanilla campaign bumper stickers seems like a vindictive fuck-you to the first amendment and should probably be a reliable basis for wrongful termination lawsuits.

on the other hand, if the worker is a direct employee of the GOP, yeah i could see firing for an Obama bumper sticker.

or if the employee is impacting the work environment with his/her political views, like blasting limbaugh from a cubicle, or leafleting during staff meetings.

but the burden of proof should be on the employer that said political views and/or their modes of expression in the workplace are directly and negatively affecting the quality of work and/or the atmosphere in which it's conducted. and no, "Obama's bad for profits" is not good enough imho.

[whistler162]

7. Might want to check the verasity of the "comment"

alot of these some person claims to be a boss fires those ***** employees who voted for that ***** Obama!

I suspect most if not all are false.

[socialist_n_TN]

8. It's happened to me.........

During the 2012 elections. And it wasn't because I supported Obama, but because I did NOT support Romney. After a discussion where I said that I didn't support Romney for president, I was fired shortly thereafter, even though my production was there.

[Abq_Sarah]

9. I'd never hire or fire an employee based on political ideology

Unless that employee brought their politics to work and badgered other employees or clients. They'd get exactly one warning and then they'd be gone... regardless of their politics.

[conservaphobe]

10. I don't think people who hold anti-government views should be able to hold government jobs. nt

[PlanetaryOrbit]

11. But where do you draw the line?

"Defense spending should be reduced by 75%" = "anti-government?"

"Federal budget should be reduced by 50%" = "anti-government?"

"Federal workforce should be reduced by 50%" = "anti-government?"