Alabama Sheriff’s Captain Fired for Supporting Constitutional Carry

[Libertarian01]

That and the fact that if they don’t want you there, why would you want to go back? They’ll just keep looking for reasons till they find one that sticks, or they will jack with your schedule or assignments until you leave.

The only reason to fight is if you think you can soak them for cash under wrongful termination or you want to leave by quitting and avoid having a term on your record.

At least that’s how I see it.

Blessings,
Bill

Methinks you assume too much. "They don't want you there..." Really? So in all terminations every single soul that was in management above a terminated employee didn't want them there? That sounds a bit too presumptuous to me.

Why fight to go back?

Maybe because you loved your work there?

Maybe because you liked your coworkers?

Maybe because you gained a great deal of satisfaction in helping the clients?

Maybe because you developed strong personal relationships with coworkers and/or customers?

Or perhaps you just hate injustice, and find the repugnant and unjust treatment by a supervisor worthy of challenging?

"The only reason." Really...?

So when we tell young people to stand up for themselves, don't be walked on, don't be a doormat, you don't have to endure mistreatment by others. You have value for who you are. Be proud. That doesn't apply to employment? How odd... I didn't realize this exception to self worth existed.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Nazgul]

Been on both sides of this as an employee and supervisor. Left places when it was a crap job when the boss didn't want me there. Never looked back. It doesn't mean the entire management was bad, just takes one or 2.

Where I was over 37 employees the company and I were very careful of disciplinary proceeding. First to make sure the info was correct and make a good decision. Firing someone was seldom employed, twice in 5 years. Then only for gross infractions, theft on a large scale, cheating customers, or alcohol.

It required the VP to sign off on it and he was personally involved.
All that being said, I almost left several times. Had 2 people I reported to who where abusive. They were determined to set us against each other. Stayed to see what I wanted - both doing the walk with a cardboard box full of their stuff walking out! Their replacements were very good at building people up instead of tearing them down.

Don

 

[Bill of Rights]

Methinks you assume too much. "They don't want you there..." Really? So in all terminations every single soul that was in management above a terminated employee didn't want them there? That sounds a bit too presumptuous to me.

Why fight to go back?

Maybe because you loved your work there?

Maybe because you liked your coworkers?

Maybe because you gained a great deal of satisfaction in helping the clients?

Maybe because you developed strong personal relationships with coworkers and/or customers?

Or perhaps you just hate injustice, and find the repugnant and unjust treatment by a supervisor worthy of challenging?

"The only reason." Really...?

So when we tell young people to stand up for themselves, don't be walked on, don't be a doormat, you don't have to endure mistreatment by others. You have value for who you are. Be proud. That doesn't apply to employment? How odd... I didn't realize this exception to self worth existed.

Regards,

Doug

Y’know, Doug, I’ll admit there are times I’m a sarcastic SOB...and there are times it’s deserved. I don’t think my post was one of those times, but I’m not real fond of it. Something I need to give some thought to, because how you came off to me is not how I want to come across, most of the time.

Be that as it may, I have been in the setting you describe, a place I enjoyed working, and I had the person above me screw me over to hire a buddy of his into my job. My experience was that this was not a fight I was going to win, and even if I won the battle, he was going to win the war. I cut my losses and moved on. Now maybe you’ve had different experiences than I’ve had, or maybe the setting was such that you could fight and win. I am happy for you if this is the case. The person I answered to defined the term for a part of the anatomy specific to men. That and the good ol’ boy network made my experience what it was.

I don’t plan to emulate Don Quixote.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Libertarian01]

Y’know, Doug, I’ll admit there are times I’m a sarcastic SOB...and there are times it’s deserved. I don’t think my post was one of those times, but I’m not real fond of it. Something I need to give some thought to, because how you came off to me is not how I want to come across, most of the time.

Be that as it may, I have been in the setting you describe, a place I enjoyed working, and I had the person above me screw me over to hire a buddy of his into my job. My experience was that this was not a fight I was going to win, and even if I won the battle, he was going to win the war. I cut my losses and moved on. Now maybe you’ve had different experiences than I’ve had, or maybe the setting was such that you could fight and win. I am happy for you if this is the case. The person I answered to defined the term for a part of the anatomy specific to men. That and the good ol’ boy network made my experience what it was.

I don’t plan to emulate Don Quixote.

Blessings,
Bill

It all "depends" like the attorneys love to say, and it is true.

I think what bothered me with your post was that it appeared to interpret all situations in a very narrow path. Could you win your job back against a lousy employer and then get messed with? Of course. Could you then sue again for hostile work environment? You betcha. And you would be more likely to win the second time as a precedent had already been set. 100%? No way, but a good shot.

I met a guy once in a situation like you described. He fought like hell for over a year against a lousy manager or two. He won. Then they messed with him and he fought again, and won again. By his doing so they were put on a leash with all other employees as well, which was his goal. Because if they could mess with him they could mess with anyone. In speaking with him he wouldn't fight like that today, he doesn't have the emotional energy that he did before.

And I guess that's my point. I agree with you that in many cases it may be better for the person fired to walk away, but in many other cases it is good to fight not just for your job - but for what is right! Stopping the abuse of one employee will often stop the abuse of all employees.

Just one last philosophical point to make is that I believe many times people think about "being fired" it is by the owner, like a one man shop that hires the cashier then fires them for cause. In most cases I believe that the "manager" is also simply an employee who is higher up the food chain. They have no claim to owning the company or building any more than the person they are firing.

In the final analysis I just hate abuse. Period. Lousy employee taking advantage. Get rid of them. Average or better employee doing what they were hired to do? Leave them alone and let them do their job without messing with them. Wrongful termination? I hope they sue and I hope they win. Putting lousy and abusive manager on a leash or shining the light on their malfeasance is good for the company, if the company is willing to see it. Moral will improve, productivity will improve. It all goes hand in hand.

Respectfully,

Doug

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Wrongful termination? I hope they sue and I hope they win. Putting lousy and abusive manager on a leash or shining the light on their malfeasance is good for the company, if the company is willing to see it. Moral will improve, productivity will improve. It all goes hand in hand.

Respectfully,

Doug

Doug, do you believe an employer should be able to sue for wrongful quitting? Perhaps all employees should have to pay into a fund that employers can draw from if an employee quits without just cause? Should an employer be able to force an employee to work for them if they have been found to have wrongfully quit?

 

[Libertarian01]

Doug, do you believe an employer should be able to sue for wrongful quitting? Perhaps all employees should have to pay into a fund that employers can draw from if an employee quits without just cause? Should an employer be able to force an employee to work for them if they have been found to have wrongfully quit?

Maybe. That would depend. Most likely I would disagree with it, but largely it would depend.

The fact is the economic power balance will always favor the employer over employee. This is no ones fault, it just is the reality of the situation. Say I go to work for Amazon. 100% of my revenue is derived from my employment there. No matter what I do, from janitorial work to department director, ALL of my bills are paid from the income I receive from Amazon. So if a person at Amazon fires me for any reason, at least temporarily I lose all my revenue. What does Amazon lose? Statistically they lose nothing.

Now that is picking on a huge company but I hope you see my point on the economic power disparity. Even in a smaller company the economic power disparity always favors the employer.

But let us be more black and white. In our country, culture and society wrongful termination is illegal. While the state of Indiana may have few protections the federal government does have some. This goes to Kirk Freeman's analogy of railroad tracks. Wrongful quitting is not illegal, but on a federal level wrongful termination is.

The ironic thing is that most laws that protect employees have been around since the late 1960's or long before, so it's not like an employer is being bushwhacked by a sudden change. The latest federal law that affects many potential employees is the Americans with Disabilities Act, passed in 1990. So it's not exactly like an employer today is being hit by a recently passed law.

I look at some of it this way, if someone wants to start a business the state (ie. govt) says, "Fine, but you have to follow certain rules." By continuing to start and run the business the employer agrees to pay minimum wage, pay overtime depending on the rules, AND follow labor laws. Wrongful termination is against the law and worthy of being as enforced as any other law. Don't like it? Great! Lobby to change the law.

As I said before, I just hate abuse, no matter which way it flows.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Maybe. That would depend. Most likely I would disagree with it, but largely it would depend.

The fact is the economic power balance will always favor the employer over employee. This is no ones fault, it just is the reality of the situation. Say I go to work for Amazon. 100% of my revenue is derived from my employment there. No matter what I do, from janitorial work to department director, ALL of my bills are paid from the income I receive from Amazon. So if a person at Amazon fires me for any reason, at least temporarily I lose all my revenue. What does Amazon lose? Statistically they lose nothing.

Now that is picking on a huge company but I hope you see my point on the economic power disparity. Even in a smaller company the economic power disparity always favors the employer.

But let us be more black and white. In our country, culture and society wrongful termination is illegal. While the state of Indiana may have few protections the federal government does have some. This goes to Kirk Freeman's analogy of railroad tracks. Wrongful quitting is not illegal, but on a federal level wrongful termination is.

The ironic thing is that most laws that protect employees have been around since the late 1960's or long before, so it's not like an employer is being bushwhacked by a sudden change. The latest federal law that affects many potential employees is the Americans with Disabilities Act, passed in 1990. So it's not exactly like an employer today is being hit by a recently passed law.

I look at some of it this way, if someone wants to start a business the state (ie. govt) says, "Fine, but you have to follow certain rules." By continuing to start and run the business the employer agrees to pay minimum wage, pay overtime depending on the rules, AND follow labor laws. Wrongful termination is against the law and worthy of being as enforced as any other law. Don't like it? Great! Lobby to change the law.

As I said before, I just hate abuse, no matter which way it flows.

Regards,

Doug

Why should the economic power balance factor into it? I enter a contract when I agree to work for somebody/place for x and they agree to hire me for x. If they can be sued for wrongful termination, why shouldn't they also be able to sue for wrongful quitting? Wouldn't that be the libertarian thing?

If employers are required to pay into a fund that employees can collect from if they were fired without just cause, shouldn't the reverse also be true? You brought up Amazon, how about smaller companies? I've worked for one or two where a single person quitting would hurt the business and quite possibly the other employees. And know several others.

And yes I don't like the current laws, and have talked to a congress critter or two about them. And before you ask, I'll let you know. I don't and have never owned a business. Oh and I don't think quite a few laws are worthy of being enforced.

And I hate abuse as well, I don't believe all abuse should be illegal. I generally hate discrimination as well, I don't believe it should be illegal.

 

[Alamo]

In this particular case described in the first post, depending on the reasoning for the termination, actual public and private statements by the sheriff, and how it was carried out, using governmental authority to influence coerce a lawmaker might be an issue.

 

[Libertarian01]

Why should the economic power balance factor into it? I enter a contract when I agree to work for somebody/place for x and they agree to hire me for x. If they can be sued for wrongful termination, why shouldn't they also be able to sue for wrongful quitting? Wouldn't that be the libertarian thing?

If employers are required to pay into a fund that employees can collect from if they were fired without just cause, shouldn't the reverse also be true? You brought up Amazon, how about smaller companies? I've worked for one or two where a single person quitting would hurt the business and quite possibly the other employees. And know several others.

And yes I don't like the current laws, and have talked to a congress critter or two about them. And before you ask, I'll let you know. I don't and have never owned a business. Oh and I don't think quite a few laws are worthy of being enforced.

And I hate abuse as well, I don't believe all abuse should be illegal. I generally hate discrimination as well, I don't believe it should be illegal.

"Why should the economic power balance factor into it?" The question implies that that both are on equal footing and that the damage done by one being fired is the same as the damage of one simply quitting. They are not. That is why I bring it up. We need to always remember that this isn't an equal transaction.

I expect fair play - both ways. Employee gets hired to do a job. That job has certain tasks that need to be performed. The employee presumes that as long as he/she performs those tasks to the standard set they will remain employed. They make plans based upon this presumption of fair treatment. The same goes for the employer. They hire an employee to do perform a function and make plans, borrow money, expand operations, etc based upon a presumption of outputs from the employee. However, if the employee walks away the employer is not normally crippled or severely injured. They will post notices and hire a new employee. Most of the time the employer loses an insignificant percentage of their work force. On the other hand if the employee is suddenly terminated for no foreseeable reason they are potentially screwed. They lose 100% of their revenue immediately. The unequal balance of power leans clearly in one direction.

"...shouldn't they also be able to sue for wrongful quitting?" If that were the law, absolutely. But it isn't, for the most part.

Regarding the payment of of unemployment insurance (I presume that is what you are referring to) I absolutely 100% agree that that should be paid entirely by employees, as they are the ones who will benefit from its use.

By the way, let us not forget that many employers who are sued for wrongful termination actually WIN! Oftentimes the plaintiff loses. So it isn't like some evil unbalanced scythe of injustice will swing forth with lethal force against a business. It only serves to balance things out to a degree and hopefully give pause to those who would blatantly be abusive.

Regarding contracts that is what most employment agreements are, whether specified or implied. And, as you know, contracts are governed by the law of the land. Contracts must be legal and follow the laws of the state (by state I mean govt.) So when we agree to be hired or do the hiring we are also by default agreeing to follow all of the laws of the state.

Regards,

Doug

 

[churchmouse]

Doug, do you believe an employer should be able to sue for wrongful quitting? Perhaps all employees should have to pay into a fund that employers can draw from if an employee quits without just cause? Should an employer be able to force an employee to work for them if they have been found to have wrongfully quit?

Please give us an example of wrongfully quitting.
I am no fan of law suits like this either way.

 

[churchmouse]

Methinks you assume too much. "They don't want you there..." Really? So in all terminations every single soul that was in management above a terminated employee didn't want them there? That sounds a bit too presumptuous to me.

Why fight to go back?

Maybe because you loved your work there?

Maybe because you liked your coworkers?

Maybe because you gained a great deal of satisfaction in helping the clients?

Maybe because you developed strong personal relationships with coworkers and/or customers?

Or perhaps you just hate injustice, and find the repugnant and unjust treatment by a supervisor worthy of challenging?

"The only reason." Really...?

So when we tell young people to stand up for themselves, don't be walked on, don't be a doormat, you don't have to endure mistreatment by others. You have value for who you are. Be proud. That doesn't apply to employment? How odd... I didn't realize this exception to self worth existed.

Regards,

Doug

Brother you really need to get out more I guess. It does not have to but 1 manager above you and life can suck the donkey. Other managers will usually just ignore and move along.

And if you have to sue to get back in the fight it will never ever be the same again

 

[Timjoebillybob]

"Why should the economic power balance factor into it?" The question implies that that both are on equal footing and that the damage done by one being fired is the same as the damage of one simply quitting. They are not. That is why I bring it up. We need to always remember that this isn't an equal transaction.

They make plans based upon this presumption of fair treatment. The same goes for the employer. They hire an employee to do perform a function and make plans, borrow money, expand operations, etc based upon a presumption of outputs from the employee. However, if the employee walks away the employer is not normally crippled or severely injured. They will post notices and hire a new employee. Most of the time the employer loses an insignificant percentage of their work force. On the other hand if the employee is suddenly terminated for no foreseeable reason they are potentially screwed. They lose 100% of their revenue immediately. The unequal balance of power leans clearly in one direction.

"...shouldn't they also be able to sue for wrongful quitting?" If that were the law, absolutely. But it isn't, for the most part.

Regarding the payment of of unemployment insurance (I presume that is what you are referring to) I absolutely 100% agree that that should be paid entirely by employees, as they are the ones who will benefit from its use.

By the way, let us not forget that many employers who are sued for wrongful termination actually WIN! Oftentimes the plaintiff loses. So it isn't like some evil unbalanced scythe of injustice will swing forth with lethal force against a business. It only serves to balance things out to a degree and hopefully give pause to those who would blatantly be abusive.

Regarding contracts that is what most employment agreements are, whether specified or implied. And, as you know, contracts are governed by the law of the land. Contracts must be legal and follow the laws of the state (by state I mean govt.) So when we agree to be hired or do the hiring we are also by default agreeing to follow all of the laws of the state.

No, I'm not implying that. I'm asking why it should matter. There are a whole lot of transactions that aren't "equal". Cab driver in the middle of winter, he refuses a fair he loses a couple of bucks. Passenger loses life due to exposure from the elements. Not quite fair is it?

Why do you say most of the time it's an insignificant % of their work force? Small businesses account for about half the employees in IN, those that employee less than 20 people make up almost half of small businesses. And yes an employee that is suddenly terminated is potentially screwed, shouldn't that be on them? All sorts of things that can happen that could potentially screw them, shouldn't they plan ahead?

You are stating what is the law, I'm asking if it should be the law.

And yes I'm talking about unemployment insurance, and I'm glad you think it should be paid for by the employee.

How does that gib with what you posted above? "The lawyer giving the presentation made it quite clear that the "at will" law in Indiana is almost irrelevant. Almost every jury, judge or review board will side with the employee UNLESS they were written up or verbally reprimanded at least three (3) times."

And I disagree with the laws. If I wish to work for less than minimum wage I should be able to, if an employer doesn't wish to employ somebody for any or no reason, that should be their prerogative. For the last part I'm strictly talking private not govt.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Please give us an example of wrongfully quitting.
I am no fan of law suits like this either way.

Give me an example of wrongfully firing. Employee in a bad mood says "screw this place", company hirers or promotes someone of X race/religion/national origin, and employee says "screw that no X will be my boss.

 

[churchmouse]

Give me an example of wrongfully firing. Employee in a bad mood says "screw this place", company hirers or promotes someone of X race/religion/national origin, and employee says "screw that no X will be my boss.

What....??????????
Man thats a bit scattered but I think I track with it and yeah that happens all the time but if you are not under a contract then see-ya good-bye. Disgruntled empl. causing distractions....thats enough in the state of Indiana.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

What....??????????
Man thats a bit scattered but I think I track with it and yeah that happens all the time but if you are not under a contract then see-ya good-bye. Disgruntled empl. causing distractions....thats enough in the state of Indiana.

Yeah a bit scattered, but if the situations were reversed the employee would easily collect unemployment/sue and the employer may face charges. And yep, if not under contract that is how it should be, for both sides.

Not positive on how you run your shop, but I think it's mostly a one person crew (yourself). But if you had an employee or two, and you had several jobs lined up and told the people you were going to be there on x date. If one of your employees got a bug up their butt and for no fault of yourself decided to quit, you would be in a bind right? With no recourse from the former employee.

Now reverse the situation you get a bug up your butt and fire an employee for no fault of themselves, their recourse would be to collect unemployment with you either getting charged higher rates for the unemployment insurance(if it happens more often than the state thinks it should) or possibly being required to pay most/all of what they receive to the state on top of what you pay them for the insurance. Not to mention possibility of a lawsuit.

 

[IndyDave1776]

In this particular case described in the first post, depending on the reasoning for the termination, actual public and private statements by the sheriff, and how it was carried out, using governmental authority to influence coerce a lawmaker might be an issue.

Exactly.