Juan Williams Fired From NPR

Remove all ads!

Juan Williams was fired from NPR for some tacky statement he made regarding Muslims on airplanes:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/npr-fires-juan-williams-oreilly-appearance/

Of course there is the usual conservative outrage:

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2010...-juan-williams-jesse-jackson-double-standard/

The interesting part is that there are calls to withold funding from Public radio as a result.

I believe that he should not have been fired for his comments. I mean come on. But that's just me, because that said, what's with all these "right to hire and fire" conservatives? I bet that these guys all support the right of an employer to fire an employee for any reason within their local states. I've even heard some of these guys comment that an employer should be able to fire you even if he "doesn't like your tie." I guess they must be having second thoughts....

 

Of course, as usual, there's more to the story. NPR took one line out of a whole speech Mr. Williams gave that resulted in the exact opposite of what that one line said. This sounds much like what happened to Ms. Sherrod, only the full statement came out immediately, even before he was fired.

The right to hire and fire changes drastically when public funds are used to do the hiring and firing. You wouldn't want your State Board of Elections firing anyone that was openly democratic, but not having any problems with openly republican workers, would you?

Of course, public funds only make up about 2% of NPR's budget, so I don't think it's much of a threat. I think the only impact it would have would be severing the final ties to government and clarifying NPR's role as a private (and thus just as likely to be biassed as anyone else) entity.

 

Come on now. That's like saying that Obama can't fire a cabinet member because he is too conservative. I was curious to see how conservatives would try to spin this blatant hipocrisy. The interesting aspect of what you are saying is that many private companies do take public money in the way of contracts -- taxpayer money. So, I can't see the distinction. I remember the woman who was fired for having a John Kerry sticker on her car during that election cycle. The fact that there is a tiny amount of public money means almost nothing in Juan's case, since it appears you can be fired from just about any job for being a Democrat or a Republican.

That link was some real hardcore trash, NOG. At least I posted a FOX news link to be fair. Who's next, Rush?

 

The guy should have known this was going to happen. When you don't toe the party line, the party gets rid of you. Of course in this case it is NPR, but let's face it, that is really the same thing.

I'm curious if at the end of the day he will benefit by this happening to him. I wonder if O'Reilly or Fox will end up hiring him?

 

Juan Williams does work for FOX, for years now. Supposedly, that's what got him in trouble. A lot of NPR listeners did not like him on NPR for exactly that reason. As I have already commented, I opposed his firing by NPR. I believe that firing ANYONE over political affiliations is wrong. But a lot of conservatives disagree with me on that point (It seems that some of my fellow lefties disagree with me as well).

 

Now I think we're getting to the real heart of the matter. That is the purpose of the hiring. A cabinet member is an inherrantly political position, so of course political beliefs come into play. An election official is an inherrantly non-political position (i.e. their political beliefs should have nothing to do with their jobs). Mr. Williams' position was as an analyst, one who disects facts and presents the conclusions without bias. As such, he should be seen as a non-partisan entity, and this is even in the contract, I believe. This brings up the question, in context of his full statement, did he breach that provision of the contract? I don't think he did, considering the full statement. The one exerpt, however, makes it seem like he did.

This is BS. By that logic, all money is public money, since sooner or later it passes through the government. As soon as it passes out of government hands, it ceases to be government money. Lockheed Martin can take the money it earns from it's government contracts and spend it however it wants, because it isn't government money any more. The government, however, shouldn't be hiring Lockeed Martin based on political contributions. One can consider the money given to NPR to be payments for a service: that of public radio. Given that, the service NPR is 'hired' to perform should be non-partisan.

Fired by whom?

Yeah, and I don't agree with much of what they said. I suppose I should have put a caveat on that. Oh well, here goes. I linked to that site because it talked about the full statement, instead of just the one quote. I didn't immediately find any others that did. I considered the rest of it to be so blatantly partisan that anyone with half a brain could easily separate the factual claims and the partisan politics and discard the partisan. How much money George Soros gave NPR, for example, though factually accurate, is neither here nor there.

 

Really. According to whom?

The thread, and "heart of the matter" is about NPR firing Juan Williams. That was an OK try at diversion, but much anticipated.

Now THAT'S freaking funny. William's did not make the comments on NPR, he made them on FOX. Of course they should not have fired him, that's my point. It is conservatives who claim that anybody can be fired for ANY reason. Remember, I'm the one who is opposed to people being fired out-of-hand by employers.

I don't think Juan Willaims should have been fired -- as I have remarked several times, including the first post -- so I guess we agree on that point. Nevertheless, In "Right to Fire" states, your emplyer does not even have to give you a reason to end your employment.

Of course it was BS (that was my point). Now you are mocking your own point.

Really? If you want to. But I don't, since any coporation can have a political agenda.

By her boss. You are saying you don't remeber the thread we had regarding that debate?

 

NPR is still a largely moderate station that employs many conservatives and regularly features conservative guests. Juan Williams has been in hot water with them several times for stepping too far outside his contractual role as an at least auspiciously impartial analyst in his dalliances with FOX. This was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Bear in mind that this station, which has gone on the record as being increasingly uncomfortable with Williams' relationship with Fox for years before ultimately firing him is also not allowing its employees to attend the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear unless they are covering it.

NPR news analysts and journalists are expected to abstain from personal political activity and are not supposed to publicly make controversial statements. NPR's code of ethics explicitly states that their journalists are not to participate in media "that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis." (http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/ethics/ethics_code.html) Agree or disagree with their ethics policy if you will, but Williams has been flagrantly violating it on several counts for years. Looking at his activities on FOX over the years and the NPR ethics policy, the only thing I find surprising is that Williams wasn't fired sooner.

 

... I think you may have misinterpreted what I wrote, but I'm not sure. What I meant was that the role for which he was hired is a deciding factor in whether or not the firing was legitimate. NPR is arguing that his now public partisan position (not that I even really consider it a partisan position, but whatever) has hampered his ability to be perceived as an unbiased analyst.

I'm sorry, what conservatives argue that anyone should be fire-able at any time for any reason? That's not an argument I've heard before, that I can remember.

Sorry, I was, umm, thinking visibly? Thinking out loud in an internet forum, as it were. Yes, I realize you don't think he should have been fired. I'm not accusing you of anything, just going through various facets. If anything, it's me that's not sure that he shouldn't have been fired.

So, does DC have any "Right to Fire" laws? I tried google, but couldn't find anything.

Ah, but corporations are not hired by the government to have political opinions. NPR is being funded by the government for the express purpose of providing public radio. If that public radio is provided in a partisan fashion, I object.

Ya sure she wasn't fired by the janitor? Or maybe the guy who just walked into the lobby? I mean, of course, was this NPR, or a state government, or Disney, or what?

No. Sorry. Did you mean this thread? If so, no, I don't remember a 5-year-old, one-page thread in which I didn't participate that was only partially dedicated to the topic. Plus, it seems it didn't answer my question, either, though I think the general consensus was that she'd have to do a LOT more than just have a bumper sticker to justify the firing.

 

You keep missing the point, NOG. Juan was under contract, so it probably would not apply. My point was that many conservatives support right to fire laws. I've never heard you comment on it either way, but there are conservatives on this board who agree with the right to fire laws. A lot of conservatives believe that your employer does not have to even give you a reason to fire you.

It appears you are not one of them, so you and I are in agreement on pretty much the basics of this issue. But really, my comments were not directed at anyone on this board anyway, but on those Southern Congressmen who support right to fire, but are now complaining about JUan's firing as being unfair (example, Jim DeMint). Excuase me, but I thought in matters regarding "fire at will" fairness was not an issue.

NOG - It appears that we are just misunderstanding each other. I think we agree on the basic points.

He did not have to have any other reason. That was my point. The lady in question was fired for just that. Her boss never denied that that was the reason she was fired. His parting words to her, were something like, "You work for me, not John Kerry. But maybe he will hire you." Then he sent her home.

Guess what? He did hire her. Last I heard, she ended up working for John Kerry.

Sorry, but I thought you might remember it, NOG. Ah, Darkwolf....those were the good ole days.


Edit: I found the old story. I had the words slightly wrong:

http://www.slate.com/id/2106714/

 

I had never even heard of this until now, and I can't find much on it. What I can find suggests it's either not a singular term (i.e. it's used different ways) or that it's not what you think. This is the most informative article I could find, and it says "right to fire" is an opposition term for "right to work" laws, which ban closed shops, union shops, and agency shops, which force workers to support a union in some form or another. Basically, "right to work" laws say that you can't be banned from or fired from a job for not belonging to the union. In that sense, I agree with it. But I don't see how it can be called 'right to fire'. It actually prevents the employer from firing you under those circumstances. Is this what you're talking about, or is it something else?

 

My apologies, NOG, it's actually called something different:

In Texas, we just call it Right to Fire. Again, my sincere apologies for the slang term I used.

http://www.tml.org/legal_pdf/2005EmploymentAtWill.pdf

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30022.html

 

While I agree with you that it sucks to be the employee in a "at will" or "right to fire" situation, why should it be any different? Your employer hires you to make money for them. If they decide you no longer can do this effectively, be it true or not it is their business and they should have the right to terminate you. Why should someone have to continue to pay an employee that they don't want anymore? It may seem cold, harsh, and ruthless, but it is reality.

For disclosure purposes, I am an "at will" employee and I work damn hard to make sure my employer sees my worth.

 

Answer, Snook: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I believe that what you point out should exist only within the confines of the work situation, unless an employee commits an illegal act outside of his business. In the instance of Juan Williams, he was fired for appearing on FOX and speaking his mind as an American citizen and journalist. What an employee does outside of work is his business, as long as it is not illegal. An example would be what happended to the lady with the Kerry sticker. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Now while NPR can claim that what Juan said on FOX put NPR in a bad light with its listeners, and maybe that's true. Obviously NPR feels that he did not uphold his end of the contract. Williams is free to take some legal action if he disagrees with the terms of his contract. But all that is beside the point. If NPR agrees that it's OK for him to appear on FOX in the first place, especailly on O'Reilly, what do they expect? It's almost like double-jeopardy. "Yeah, Juan, you can appear on FOX, with Bill O, but don't say anything we don't agree with." What kind of journalism is that? While I can agree that going with a competitor can be grounds for termination, it's not like they did not know that Williams was going to be on with O'Reilly. That's almost like entrapment for firing him for saying something they don't like on that program.

 

Ah, at-will employment. That I'm familiar with, though I didn't realize it was a conservative stump. Just because I've never heard it in politics before, what makes you associate it with conservatives? Looking through the Wikipediat article on it, it seems to have a fair mix of states, and be opposed (one way or another) in a fair mix of states.

My feelings on that are: I'm an at-will employee. This means that the company can fire me for any reason, or that I can quit for any reason. It's an equal provision. It is also an equal provision that was clearly spelled out when I decided to work for Lockheed Martin. If my employer decides to fire me for, say, having a KLOVE (Christian radio station) bumper sticker, or because they found out I post on these forums when I'm at home, then I probably don't want to be working for such ascii-holes in the first place. At-will employers who fire people for stupid reasons *should* earn a nasty reputation for employment and only end up employing people who can't get work anywhere else. Lockheed Martin is not such a company (and from what little I've seen so far has an excellent ethics standard). I'm not worried. I'd also rather work as an at-will employee than as a contract employee who was himself bound by the terms of contract. I just like my freedom like that. That may change some day.

 

That's ridiculous. Note how in Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, there isn't any mention of a paycheck. If an employer decides for any reason that they don't want you anymore why should they be forced to continue paying you? They may decide your position is no longer needed or maybe they found someone who will do it for cheaper or maybe better than you can.

As NOG said it works both ways, an employer can't force you to stay and work if you don't want to. At the firm I work for we had a significant layoff last April that adversely effected the lives of many people. It was a very difficult time for everyone. This past week we had three people give their notice and now the firm is going to struggle to find replacements for them (as they were all very good). That's the way it works.

The concept that you can only be judged on what you do in the workplace reminds me of Las Vegas. The concept of "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" is a great advertising campaign, but when word gets back to the missus about all the money you lost at the tables, champagne rooms, and hookers you can't ask her to not judge you on what you do "outside the home"

 

That's almost like being a government employee, since they rely heavily on government contracts to stay in business. I'm surprised that it's a right to fire company, since companies that rely that heavily on taxpayer money usually have to comply with government employee standards, the same as government workers.

And I thought you said you never heard of such a thing...that's what I get for believeing you.

Snook, while I can appreciate your rant, I did mention that has long as it was "legal." Thanks for ignoring that to make your point.

So you two are agreed between yourselves, if an employer wants to terminate an employee because of his or her's politics, that's fine? If they:

So you are really complimenting NPR for their "fine work."

In the instance of the lady who was fired for the Kerry sticker, what did the moron expect, that all his employees would vote Republican once he hired them?

Or you may have a Palin sticker on your car....

 

I didn't purposely ignore the word legal as it makes no difference. I fully expect that my employer would terminate me if I was arrested for possession of marijuana (illegal) or if my picture made the front page of the Boston Globe at a "Make marijuana legal" rally (legal). In both cases my employer would have to decide if it makes sense to keep me there.

The first amendment guarantees "freedom of speech", but it doesn't gurarantee "freedom from the consequences of free speech." You may remember that Dixie Chicks fiasco way back when. In my opinion it behooves people to keep their politics to themselves (or at least hide behind a screen name ). I don't discuss politics with any of my clients unless they bring it up and even then I'm very guarded. I work at a firm with a couple of hundred other people. I don't think there is a single political bumper sticker in the parking lot. It wouldn't be seen as prudent.

I don't know the circumstances of the woman with the "Kerry" bumper sticker getting fired, but hopefully she learned from it and next time will either make sure she is working for a Democrat supporter or keep her politics to herself. Would you go to work at "Smith and Wesson" with a "I support gun control " bumper sticker? I would hope not as I'm sure they wouldn't like it either.

Now to finally get on topic. I'm not so much pointing out the "fine work" done by NPR, as opposed to NPR once again proving that it is a propaganda machine for the Democrats. It is remarkable the outrage the far left has for Fox News, yet is oblivous to when the shoe is on the other foot. The major difference being that Fox is a business and NPR receives taxpayer money. My funny bone just went off thinking about the howls of outrage if a Republican Congress proposed giving funding to Fox equal to what the give NPR. The head of my next door neighbor would probably explode.

As to a Palin sticker you are probably correct. I'm sure the presence of a Palin sticker would be as well received at Berkerly as the Kerry sticker was.

 

Lockheed Martin is still distinct from the government. There may well be some standards that the government applies to who can be fired for what on their contracts, I don't know, but I'm not hired by the government contract (a good thing, since most only last a year these days). After I'm done on this job, Lockheed Martin may move me to something that isn't a government contract, and I assume they don't want to officially commit to more than they need to.

Like I said, I'm familiar with at-will employment. It was that "right to fire" stuff that confused me. Additionally, I'm still not familiar with at-will employment as a political stump position.

I didn't say it was fine. The guy that fired that woman for a Kerry bumper sticker is an idiot, and a jerk at that, but I do think it should be his right.

 

Of course it makes a difference, since most people could understand that could be grounds for termination. For instance, if you went to Vegas and you lost money gambling, your company may be able to fire you for that, since you may not only become a risk, but gambling may be illegal by the local laws where your company is based. Or your company may have clients who frown upon gambling. So, yes it can make a difference. Unlikely as it may be, (and would be "unfair") but not beyond reason.

Well, there are a few in the parking lot (around 150 employees) where I work, so I guess each company is different in that regards. And yes, politics is discussed openly. It's always been like that here. In fact, my first wife was a corporate manager at one of the largest banks in Houston and she was expected to donate to the Republican Party, since that was the party her bank had a "relationship" with at that time. I was more than a little shocked when her bank "requested" her donation.

No I don't, please remind me.

You should have read the link, and educated yourself, because now you stepped in it. Her boss offered her job back, but she turned it down to work for John Kerry who called her personally when he heard the news. Too bad her boss did not take YOUR advice though:

Really? He was pretty liberal last time I saw him. But I heard that he's been drinking the Kool-Aid at FOX these days.

My funny bone just went off thinking about what would happen to your head if Congress proposed giving funding to MSNBC.