We read:
"A Connecticut legislator is seeking to restrict the speech of employers on 'religious or political' topics in pending legislation (House Bill 5460).
The bill reads, “No employer, and no ... representative ... of such employer, shall require its employees to attend an employer-sponsored meeting with the employer or its agent, representative or designee, the primary purpose of which is to communicate the employer’s opinion concerning religious or political matters.'
This content-based regulation of speech violates the First Amendment by singling out political and religious speech for special restrictions."
Source
As long as it's in work time or paid time it should be permitted
11 comments:
This law seems fair, for as a Christian, this means that I would likewise not be exposed to Muslim rhetoric or be subject to discussions of or enforcement of Sharia Law in the work place.
I believe the title of the post as well as the text is very misleading, one of the few posts on this blog I actually find fault with. From the body of the text "...seeking to restrict the speech of employers..." contrasts with "No employer...shall require its employees to attend..."
The law in no way restricts the free speech of employers, it simply says they can't require their employees to attend their political or religious brainwashing. The employer can still hold the meetings and express his/her point of view.
I would never sign an employment contract that required me to sit and listen to my employers political opinion and I don't believe it would be fair for them to fire me for not attending such events when I never agreed to. While this law might be ill constructed it is not a restriction of free speech.
It's always the struggle with freedom of speech. You have freedom to speak - I have freedom to not listen!
The source article didn't contain any comments from the lawmakers proposing this law. So it's very difficult to discuss the why of such a law.
It seems to me that this could be targeted at employer requirements for employees to attend politically correct "reeducation/indoctrination camps" when the employers' beliefs conflict with the employee's beliefs. In that case, I would say such a law might be a good thing.
Well said Anon 2:44. No law, not even in the Peoples Republic of Connecticut, can limit anyone's right to political or religious speech, nor can any law they pass require someone to have to sit and listen to it. The very first court this gets into will dump it.
What if the XYZ company's main product is a Widget. If they don't sell this Widget, they will go out of business. Now suppose their Senator sponsors a bill to outlaw Widgets. Doesn't the XYZ company have a right to tell their employees that the Senator's bill will mean the end to their job?
The lefists who proposes this deserves to be thrown out of america forever
Doesn't the XYZ company have a right to tell their employees that the Senator's bill will mean the end to their job?
Sure. That is not what the bill says though. The bill prohibits the employer from holding a meeting at the XYZ Widget company saying the the employer is against the bill.
The bill allows for all the informational meetings you want. The bill prohibits a meeting whose sole purpose is to promote a political or religious agenda.
Actually Anon. 10:29 that isn't what it says either.
It says you cannot COMPEL your employees to attend any such pro-widget seminar... not that you can't hold one at work or during work hours and what the employer thinks about it.
Wrong.
A police officer in Texas is in trouble for not going to a PR meeting at a mosque. The chief's political beliefs were behind the meeting. He had no right to set up the meeting because his politcal beliefs said "Let's 'build bridges' with muslims") and then make his empoyee go.
Believe me, as a teacher, I constantly have go to "trainings" that are the districts beliefs, not mine -- ideological, nothing to do with teaching -- and I'd love a law like this in my state.
Anon 6:01,
My apologies. I knew what I was saying and it is what you are saying as well. Somewhere between my brain and the keyboard, I allowed the statement to change and become incorrect.
Thanks for the catch.
Once again, my apologies.
Post a Comment