By now you’ve probably seen this report from MSNBC about the number of lame-stream-media members donating to Democrats over Republicans at a rate of 7-to-1.
Yeah, big surprise there. But did you read further into it?
But with polls showing the public losing faith in the ability of journalists to give the news straight up, some major newspapers and TV networks are clamping down. They now prohibit all political activity — aside from voting — no matter whether the journalist covers baseball or proofreads the obituaries. The Times in 2003 banned all donations, with editors scouring the FEC records regularly to watch for in-house donors. In 2005, The Chicago Tribune made its policy absolute. CBS did the same last fall. And The Atlantic Monthly, where a senior editor gave $500 to the Democratic Party in 2004, says it is considering banning all donations. After MSNBC.com contacted Salon.com about donations by a reporter and a former executive editor, this week Salon banned donations for all its staff.
They are getting tired of seeing how easy it is to prove that they as an institution are biased against right leaning candidates and causes, so they are denying their employees the ability to give folks like you and me the rope to hang them with.
Now, Captain Ed asks if these reporters are “allowed to be Americans?” I say that they are and that if they don’t like not being able to contribute to their favorite candidate or party by their employer, they can find work elsewhere.
Just as media employees have the First Amendment right to speak with their political contributions, I have a civil right to arm myself. Yet my employer denies me this right while I’m on their property (a rule that was changed after my employment started with them).
Just as I have the right to not work here (and go somewhere else with the same policy), they have the right to go work somewhere that allows them to contribute to whatever political entity they wish.
Of course, the media wouldn’t consider the two to be similar, but that is why they give big bucks to Democrats.
Back when you first started with “TrashMasters”, you were represented by a union, weren’t you?
The Teamsters, if I recall correctly.
In every labor contract the Teamsters ever signed, there is a “past practices” clause, wherein Management agrees NOT to change any work rules without sit-down negotiations with the bargaining agent.
I presume the personal security of union members at work would be one such practice that could not be changed in any manner without the Union’s say-so.
Did negotiations take place? If not, you might ask a steward you are still on good terms with to see if all the proper squares were filled in before the dis-arming change was made. If they weren’t, the union could still bring a UFLP against Management.
if they don’t like not being able to contribute to their favorite candidate or party by their employer, they can find work elsewhere.
I strongly disagree with you there. An employer has no grounds to deny basic civil rights…isn’t the media all ABOUT the First Amendment? But then they deny First Amendment rights to their employees?
Just as media employees have the First Amendment right to speak with their political contributions, I have a civil right to arm myself. Yet my employer denies me this right while I’m on their property
Did your employer deny you said right at home? Did they threaten to fire you if your name came up on one of the press’ infamous lists of Concealed Handgun Permit Holders? Did they threaten to fire you if you so much as OWNED a firearm?
Your argument might have some validity if the Media watchdogs were only attempting to prevent employees from participating in political activity using company assets or on company time; that’s obviously not the case here…they are prohibiting political activity PERIOD. On or off the clock.
The Military doesn’t even try to do that. The only stipulation is that you don’t wear a uniform or in any way give the impression that you are acting as a representative of the military when engaged in political activity.
I gotta disagree with you here. Employers should have the ability to regulate (legal) behavior on the clock and an company property and no-where else.
RD: Nope, never been rep’d by a union here. But even if I had been, it wouldn’t have mattered. When the new rule came down from on-high, the Shop Steward went to the big boys and they told him it wasn’t worth their time or money.
C’mon, if unions actually stood for worker rights, the Dems wouldn’t support them.
Curt: I am one to gloat. Heavily. Whenever possible.
Give me a couple weeks and I’ll probably change my mind 180 degrees, but for now, I am finding it hilarious that the group who always, always, always goes directly to the Brady Bunch or VPC whenever there is a news story involving firearms is having a civil right stripped from them, wholesale.
Call it childish, but I find this incredibly funny and think they deserve every bit of it. I don’t have to be fair, I’m a blogger. Being fair is their job.
Hell, I would bet that if you asked them, that over 50% of them wouldn’t even be able to tell you which right they had lost unless someone clued them in. I’m sure that most of them didn’t even know they hadn’t lost a civil right until someone told they had.
After all, this is the group that lauded the passage of McCain/Feingold hither and thither.
And heralded the idea of SCOTUS justices using “international standards†in their decisions.
And consider themselves “citizens of the world†so as to not have pro-US biases.
And I could go on and on with examples of how they’ve given their employers reasons to deny them this right.
Like I said, give me a couple weeks and I’ll be able to get over my mixture of “they got what’s comin’ to them†and humor, but for now, I’m quite pleased at the goose getting what the gander has been dealing with for decades.
As for my employer threatening to fire me for owning a firearm, the company itself, no. But their representative, my ex-big boss, tried his damnedest to come up with a reason he could get “HR†and my co-workers to go along with. Luckily for me, he wasn’t as “smart†as a previous manager at another employer who told me that I had to go to “Anger Management†therapy or leave.
I left. And called a lawyer
There was nothing that would have caused him to be able to hit me with that: No outbursts, not arguments, no situations with other employees. My employment at that company had been exemplary until he learned that I was an active firearms owner.
I was “Too Gunny†for his liking and he decided that he wanted to put his bigotry out in the open. If I’d cared more, or felt like more of a victim, I’d have tried asking for money. But decided that since the company was going to can his bigoted self and had offered me my job back, that I’d rather just leave the area un-assed. Found a better job with more money and moved on.
I’ll also point out that none of these media folks have bothered to call a lawyer with what would be a guaranteed winning case. Apparently, they don’t think it is that important.
Can’t argue with you there my friend.