Why should a Company be able to decide if a member of staff wants to donate to a political cause?

Is this actually Constitutional? Could Keith O legitimately borrow a sign from the tea-baggers?

Why is it shocking that a Democratic supporter gave money to Democratic campaigns? I would have been more surprised to find out that he did not.

I've been reading it is not just Keith O that has to request the permission of his employers, others, even here on this board have to seek the permission of their employer. Once you are paid it is your money.

Why should employers even know?

Has MSNBC kicked off a rights issue?

He signed it willingly and took the salary.
A contract can say just about anything, and if you sign it, you are bound by it, of face the consequences.
It's not that unusual.

So that part may not have validity. Assuming that it does, should those type of restrictions be allowed at all?

As such, I doubt it's an issue in any law.

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are among the most important rights in the constitution, but that doesn't make confidentiality agreements or requiring that your employees turn up to work unconstitutional.

The point of rights enshrined in law is that they cannot be taken away *involuntarily*.

Employers are allowed to place restrictions on speech when they can show a business interest in doing so, and when their policies are explained up front and the employee agrees to them.

He signed a contract saying that he would not donate without first consulting his employers.

He apparently did not do so.

He violated that term of his contract.


This is NOT an issue of Constitutional rights.


It's the same as if an employer didn't want its employees to be drinking alcohol on its property. If I'm an employer and I don't want booze in my workplace, and I hire you and you knowingly sign a contract saying you will not bring booze into my building, then I find out you have booze in my building, you've violated the terms of the contract you signed.

Constitution restricts what govt can do, in this respect.

First Amendment 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

'Congress' here should be read to mean 'governments,' as its been so interpreted.

taking them.

You have no such protection from a company you work for, especially when it is part of your employment contract.

KO didn't have to sign the contract ... or he could have demanded that
said point of contract be taken out ....
not saying it is right .. however ... he signed a contract
and they held him to it .....

otherwise its a contract issue. Doesn't mean its easy, as employment contracts are often not really negotiable, but that's the way it is.

In Keith's case, not sure how/why his employer learned; young journalist disclosed, but not sure how he/she learned. Generally, I agree with suggestion that employers need not know. (Like, who did YOU vote for? NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!)

I can remember a time when Business would have been
hands off about what you do in personal life.
They are correct when they speak of contracts,
but I must admit I was surprised to hear it so
defined and spelled out.

Corpratism--merger of business and state with business
having the power.

It is just the opposite of communism where the state has
power over business.

It has to do with contracts. I worked most of my adult life as a journalist. There was a disclosure clause in every contract I ever signed. Not about political donations, because I didn't write about politics. About other things that could represent a conflict of interest. There are such clauses in most contracts where the appearance of conflicts of interest affect the company and the employee.

It's not a constitutional issue in any way.

have to get permission.

The Supreme Court has declared it - so it must be ok :(

the foundation of the respect given to them was their willingness to report the truth in an unbiased manner.

Hence, restrictions on political donations because they create a conflict of interest to a journalist.

Nowadays, though, nobody respects journalists (and with good reason) so I can see why so few understand why this was a problem for Olbermann.

I think we can all agree that KO is a paid pundit like the rest of those on cable networks but he did sign a contract with the stipulation.

I find it ridiculous that it's any surprise of who he would support but having said that I would think he would have been smart enough to at least disclose it.

His ratings I believe are one million daily and I can't see MSNBC being able to afford their one commentator to be let go.

I don't watch his show but I don't watch any of these opinion shows on television. I made the choice a long time ago in that I found them detrimental to my physical as well as mental health.

On a side note, I wonder if they are looking for a way to stop paying him the $7.5 million dollars a year he earns for doing his show.

After all, it is a commentator's job to have an opinion on the story he's reporting.

I always thought he was a commentator, one who supported Democratic causes.

Had Keith Olbermann been found to have donated money to the Republican party, the whole issue of his "rights" would have been moot here.

Absolutely and totally dead.

In fact, people who are defending him tooth and nail now would be on the other side of it, vilifying him and probably vowing never to speak his name again.


So, if Keith Olbermann has had his "rights" squashed in this case, would they also have been squashed if he had donated to the Republicans instead?

uhhh...yeah.

right

:eyes:

period. Not here in the US, not in China, or in Latin America. It was made clear when I took the position.

His case is different than mine as he is a on air personality. He either broke the rule he did not know about or broke the rule because he wanted to.

Either way, when you agree to rules as part of your employment it is reasonable to uphold your end.