http://www.mediaite.com/tv/janitor-fired...-public-around/


The liberal police-state in action again. When the liberals who fired her saw they were vulnerable to legal backlash, they reversed and un-fired her.


Reminiscent of when Joe the Plumber was approached by Obama with a microphone, and not by his premeditation or choice, but because he was approached by Obama, humiliated Obama by asking the wrong questions. And Ohio state employees abused the database of the state to investigate and humiliate Joe the plumber (a k a, Joseph Wurzelbacher), with confidential information.

It's scary what liberals would do to conservatives if they had the power to abuse, up to and including genocide of those they disagree with politically, as I've seen voiced increasingly among liberals.

For all their whining about conservative fascism and bigotry, they prove themselves over and over to be one in spirit with Stalin, Mao, Ayers and Chavez.

Sometimes private companies fire employees unfairly. Why would this be indictive of liberals in general? I know you like crying the victim but we don't even know if it was a "liberal" who allegedly fired the custodian. Also of note is there seems to be an attempt to get any teacher fired who complained about the sign. That wouldn't be right either.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!



Obviously you've never heard of people getting penalized for making a hostile work environment.

But hey, I think it's cool that you're actually trying to put a spin on "that did it first," with a "they're doing it too!"

Reports have made clear that there were multiple campaign signs permitted that opposed Scott Walker, and only the pro-Walker sign was not permitted.

It's clear also that they reversed and un-fired the lady, because they couldn't justify her initial firing.

FAUX news delivers a one-sided hit piece, painting one of Scott Wanker's lemmings to be a poor little victim, right in time for the recall election!

What a coincidence!

Roger.

So she actually wasn't getting fired for supporting Scott Walker.

Roger.

Well, John, according to the private company that employs her , they never fired her.



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wis-cust...ign-speaks-out/

I hope "the blaze" is a suitable source for you.

So either the private company fired her, or she misunderstood what the private company's manager said to her.

Excellent timing on this non-story from FAUX, wouldn't you agree, John?

What the fuck is "The Blaze?" And why am I not surprised that I've never heard of it?

She had already said that she was given an ultimatum and that things were going to be escalated to a firing. What exactly do you think happens to someone who's told to do something by her employer and she specifically tells them to go piss up a rope?

But is that the tune you're gonna keep? The custodian is lying about everything because she's a Walker fan?


BTW: Could you elaborate on why you're emphasizing that this was the decision of a private company when the issue in general is about social pressure?

There were other employees of this custodial service that had other signs? If you're referring to the teachers that had bumper stickers you have to keep in mind they're not employed by the same service that allegedly fired the custodian. You seem to be treating this like there's only one employer and that's not true.

Spot-on. Anything to stir-up the crazy-crowd like David and Rambo...

Personal attacks, with nothing to back it up. Again.


The fact remains: the one election sign for Scott Walker was not only discouraged, but the woman who displayed it in her car was fired when she would not be intimidated into removing it.
And conversely, several other employees were permitted and not discouraged from displaying anti- Scott Walker signs.

It also remains: she was re-instated to her job because the polital harasment and intimidation was so blatant, that they reversed the firing to protect themselves from legal action.

What other employees of the custodial company? Remember those teachers don't work for the custodial service.

Right. The teachers have a union that helps protect their freedom of speech. The custodian has the private sector looking out for her. According to Pariah, the private company was going to fire her for exercising her First Amendment rights. (Personally, I think she's full of shit and is looking for a lawsuit and to be a martyr. I also won't be surprised if this bullshit "story" was engineered by Walker's people, he did consider planting "troublemakers" during the protests a year ago. The timing of all this is unreal.)

Pariah misses the irony in his claim: the custodian loves Scott Wanker, who loves the private sector. Her reward for her loyalty to Wanker? The private sector (who owns him) fires her.

Grocery stores are an example of private enterprise as well. And yet their decisions are still subject to pressure from unions. This is a similar case where the company felt pressured by the fact that she stated a political opinion in the midst of one of the facilities that commissions them.

Nice try though.

Apple meet orange meet Pariah.

How is it apples and oranges? In both scenarios, the companies are subject to pressure. Hell, it was already admitted that the company made a final decision based on what he school said. And, not surprisingly, the school told them to take the course of action that affords them the most positive PR.

...Or least negative as it were.

Regardless of whether it's in the public or private sector, the point is that authority favors free speech opposing Scott Walker, while harassing, banning and silencing free speech supporting Walker. By individuals in the public sector, using their power to bully private sector contractors.

Another example is attempts at payback toward "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, using state offices and databases to humiliate and discredit him by by releasing state-owned confidential information about Wurzelbacher.

And in universities, where teachers, students and conservative guest speakers are silenced by harassment of public employees.


The contract cleaning company was pressured by public employees to get rid of the sign.

The authority in this case (the school) told the private company that their policy allowed these types of signs.

But...



That doesn't sound to me like they were "allowing" it. But instead harassing and silencing dissenting opinion through abuse of their authority.

Err teachers complaining about something isn't the same thing as the school making a decision. Unless the teachers had positions where they were officially representing the school. What I get from this is they complained about it but the school administration didn't have a problem with it. When they were asked by the private company they verified their policy.

They hid behind official statements, but in reality used their taxpayer-provided authority to snuff out the opinion of a citizen who politically disagreed with them.

Just because they could.



It's again an example where liberals only believe in their own free speech, and abuse their public authority to silence dissenting opinion, any way they can.

According to the RightWing SuperFriends, private businesses can fire at will. This happened here, so why are they crying?