On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 05:18:18 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 7:08:08 PM UTC+10, chandelle wrote:
>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 12:54:48 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> >
>> > No-one has suggested that Robinson's tweets were illegal. They have
>> > said that they breach his terms and conditions of employment and that
>> > his employers have the right to discipline him for that breach, as
>> > they would for any other breach of his Ts & Cs.
>> >
>> > Are you saying that breach of contract is something employers should
>> > ignore?
>> No, I'm saying that such Ts and Cs are wrong and shouldn't exist in the first place. Organisations can put out as loud a banner as they wish to, stating that their employees' personal views don't reflect the organisation's or whatever and leave it at that.
>
>Yeah, that's going to work...
>If somebody says "Hitler had the right idea about the Jews" obviously his employer won't face any blow back from that and all the other employees - especially the Jewish ones - should be fine with working with him...

Furthermore, the employer may well conclude that someone with such
views is incapable of carrying out their job function. They could not
be trusted, for instance, to deliver an accurate performance report on
people they are supposed to manage.

At a more fundamental level, the very fact that they espouse views
which have no rational basis questions their ability to make accurate
judgements about anything. There is a statistically significant
correlation between holding reprehensible views and being very stupid,
which is bound to limit employment opportunities.

The imbecile's overriding priority is his racism, but his
irrationality is observable in almost every comment he makes. I
wouldn't dream of employing someone who is incapable of admitting
error, is incapable of understanding statistics beyond a 9-year-old's
level, comments "oh, the irony" when confronted with facts which
disprove his idiotic utterances and simply descends into abuse and
incivility when anyone disagrees with them.

The former president of the US is a racist who seriously suggested
that people could combat COVID by injecting disinfectant and thought
that imposing tariffs on Chinese imports meant that China were paying
the tariffs rather than the companies importing the goods, who then
passed on the additional costs to American consumers. And the list of
his other cretinously stupid ideas would fill libraries. His vaunted
success in business is a classic example of the easiest way of making
a small fortune being to start with a large one.

And so on. Name a vocal racist and it's odds-on you're naming someone
who has trouble with the real world because they're too dim to
understand it.

Cheers,

Mike

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 2:12:52 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 05:18:18 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 7:08:08 PM UTC+10, chandelle wrote:
> >> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 12:54:48 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >> >
> >> > No-one has suggested that Robinson's tweets were illegal. They have
> >> > said that they breach his terms and conditions of employment and that
> >> > his employers have the right to discipline him for that breach, as
> >> > they would for any other breach of his Ts & Cs.
> >> >
> >> > Are you saying that breach of contract is something employers should
> >> > ignore?
> >> No, I'm saying that such Ts and Cs are wrong and shouldn't exist in the first place. Organisations can put out as loud a banner as they wish to, stating that their employees' personal views don't reflect the organisation's or whatever and leave it at that.
> >
> >Yeah, that's going to work...
> >If somebody says "Hitler had the right idea about the Jews" obviously his employer won't face any blow back from that and all the other employees - especially the Jewish ones - should be fine with working with him...
> Furthermore, the employer may well conclude that someone with such
> views is incapable of carrying out their job function. They could not
> be trusted, for instance, to deliver an accurate performance report on
> people they are supposed to manage.
>
> At a more fundamental level, the very fact that they espouse views
> which have no rational basis questions their ability to make accurate
> judgements about anything. There is a statistically significant
> correlation between holding reprehensible views and being very stupid,
> which is bound to limit employment opportunities.
>
> The imbecile's overriding priority is his racism, but his
> irrationality is observable in almost every comment he makes. I
> wouldn't dream of employing someone who is incapable of admitting
> error, is incapable of understanding statistics beyond a 9-year-old's
> level, comments "oh, the irony" when confronted with facts which
> disprove his idiotic utterances and simply descends into abuse and
> incivility when anyone disagrees with them.
>
> The former president of the US is a racist who seriously suggested
> that people could combat COVID by injecting disinfectant and thought
> that imposing tariffs on Chinese imports meant that China were paying
> the tariffs rather than the companies importing the goods, who then
> passed on the additional costs to American consumers. And the list of
> his other cretinously stupid ideas would fill libraries. His vaunted
> success in business is a classic example of the easiest way of making
> a small fortune being to start with a large one.
>
> And so on. Name a vocal racist and it's odds-on you're naming someone
> who has trouble with the real world because they're too dim to
> understand it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Translation: master Unwholesome at full liberal bigot fantasy.... RH