By Dan Calabrese ——Bio and Archives--September 23, 2014
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
Hooters drew some unwanted attention last spring when an NLRB administrative law judge ruled in favor of two employees who had been fired for cursing at a co-worker in front of restaurant guests. The two fired employees claimed that their co-worker had fixed a bikini contest in her favor. By allegedly arranging for her boyfriend and best friend to serve as judges, the woman was able to win the $300 first prize while earning the ire of two losing, er, contestants. Now comes a paper in which attorneys at the Holland & Knight law firm note a disturbing NLRB trend of condoning profanity and insubordination among U.S. workers. They're warning employers about a pattern of board decisions "that attack sensible, long-standing management standards of conduct." Authors Frederick Braid and Loren Forrest note a recent case in which the board sided with an employee of an auto dealership who cursed out the owner in a meeting to discuss compensation. The employee used words not fit for a family newspaper as he insulted the business owner, called him "stupid," told him that nobody liked him and that he would regret it if he fired the abusive employee. After the dealership went ahead and fired the worker, the NLRB ruled that the business had violated the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB said the employee's behavior was neither "belligerent" nor "menacing." In a case involving Starbucks Corp. , report Messrs. Braid and Forrest, "the Board again reinstated an employee" who engaged in profanity-laced tirades against his manager. "The first tirade occurred when the employee felt that his manager was slow to assist him during a busy day at Starbucks. Instead of thanking his manager for the requested assistance, which the manager provided, the employee said, 'about damn time.'" The worker then used foul language and told his boss to "do everything your damn self."In the Starbucks case, the NLRB argued that the cursing was not the real reason for the firing, but that Starbucks had just used that as an excuse to get rid of the guy because he was pro-union. So let me see if I have this straight: Your employee tells you to @*&$#$%#@*#$@^!!!, and as a result you fire him and clearly state this is the reason, but the NLRB, being of the opinion that this perfectly legitimate reason to fire an employee was not your real reason, will thus order the employee reinstated. Fantastic. These rulings obviously have nothing to do with the merits of the cases under consideration. Rather, they have everything to do with union power. Labor unions are major benefactors of the Democratic Party, and in exchange for their cash they expect to be rewarded with government-bestowed power. By appointing pro-union stooges to the NLRB, Obama is able to pay off his union backers by providing a federal forum in which the process is rigged in the unions' favor. This suits Obama's agenda too. Do you ever wonder who votes for this guy? How about the malcontents who drop f-bombs on their bosses and don't think they deserve to be fired for it? There are certainly enough of these to keep the NLRB busy. Combined with all the other irresponsible malcontents in America, apparently we do indeed have the numbers to cobble together a Democrat majority. All I can say is: $%#@%&*$@!
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain
Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.