[aldo_14]

It's a simple case of free speech; it would be justifiable cause for sacking if he'd said it in a professional capacity, but it wasn't.  Forget what he said - what right does the company have to judge people based upon their opinions outside the workplace?

[Nico]

Originally posted by Flipside
anyone who doesn't agree with, e.g. Blairs policies must therefore be a traitor to the UK.

Anyone who belongs to Blair's (or any part you belong to, for that matter, in GB) party and doesn't share its views, and publicly state it, has to resign. This is exactly the same thing, and I thank you for giving me the idea of such a fine exemple

Aldo, well I believe keeping a guy who made such statements would damage the image of the company. I guess I'm just a liberal whore, but heh

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Nico

Aldo, well I believe keeping a guy who made such statements would damage the image of the company. I guess I'm just a liberal whore, but heh

If they were made within a personal capacity, they wouldn't have even been identified with the name of the company.

Incidentally, Claire Short & Robin Cook both very vocally disagreed with the government over the Iraq war and eventually resigned from their posts; but this remains irrelevant as they made their opinions known within their professional capacity as politicians (actually, Short didn't resign until 2 months after the war started, having changed her position to support it after a likely tongue lashing).  Additionally, politics is arguably a unique situation where individuals are unable to have a distinct personal and professional public persona.

A more correct scenario, IMO, would be sacking a police chief for saying - within a clearly identified personal capacity - that he disagreed with the introduction of ID cards, or had a complaint about jail/rehabilitation policy.

[Nico]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Incidentally, Claire Short & Robin Cook both very vocally disagreed with the government over the Iraq war and eventually resigned from their posts; but this remains irrelevant as they made their opinions known within their professional capacity as politicians (actually, Short didn't resign until 2 months after the war started, having changed her position to support it after a likely tongue lashing).  Additionally, politics is arguably a unique situation where individuals are unable to have a distinct personal and professional public persona.

I've had a very boring course over a few months about british politics this year. A member of the party, if he voices advices opposed to his party's go through the whipping system:
1) He's going through a "you should change our opinion because blablabla
2) he gets mild threats like "think of your carrer, dude"
3) he is asked to resign, in last resort (because when you make someone resign, he's likely to become an opponent later, if his carrer is not damaged by his rebellion -see 2)- )

Now I guess that's only in theory, but the Iraki war  issue proved it is true, at least in case of major issues. People who kept straight against it had to resign.

Anyway, back on topic, it's clearly a matter of opinion. You have your own (that I respect, don't be mistaken), I have mine (that I don't belive is THE right opinion, but that I don't believe is a bad one either), I guess there is no use arguing any further, since we both won't be convinced by the other party .