If you’re going to make stuff up, I suppose anything is possible. Next time add a cross or two for you and your martyrs.
The whole thing happened that way because of the slide toward authoritarianism. The media were just as scared shitless of Trump as anyone else, if not more so because he often expressed contempt for freedom of the press and encouraged the unlawful imprisonment of journalists. They were fighting back. And yes I think they did undermine their credibility at times.
From this foreign observer’s perspective, the only reason Trump was criticised so much is that he did so many things you could criticise. And don’t forget he has a hell of a lot of cheerleaders too.
I’m not disagreeing on either count, but again from outside the country I don’t recall seeing much positive media coverage of him at all, and whenever an outlet did run a positive piece it seemed there’d often be at least one story from another outlets attacking the original outlet for running a positive piece in the first place.
It had the effect of making it very hard to work out exactly what the situation was - and helped contribute to the whole “Fake News” narrative we have now where anything any media outlet reports - even if it is factual/correct - can be dismissed as “Fake News” by people who don’t want to agree with it.
Several states, Arizona being one, have right-to-work statutes saying an employer can fire an employee without notice for any reason or no reason at all. Likewise, an employee can quit anytime at all with no notice.
It’s sort of like Anatole France’s quote about the law equally forbidding rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges.
That’s because all the positive coverage happens on networks with limited foreign spread, like Fox and OAN. But there was quite a lot of it.
Thanks for the explanation! Does not sound like a fun system at all.
It’s almost a nitpick, but I’m tired of people confusing right to work and employment at will. Right to work has to do with not having to join a union in a unionized workplace. Employment at will is that either party can terminate employment at any time with no penalty. That is, there is no requirement to create a contract that can only be ended by the end of the contract term. I’m not sure how much of the confusion is just the terminology, and how much is an attempt to somehow prop up unions.
They get tied together because it is generally presumed no labor organization → no contract protecting you from, or indemnizing you for, dismissal “at will”.
And of course, calling non-unionization “right to work” is an exquisite example of conservative virtue signaling language.
But you can have a contract if both parties agree, union or not. Frankly, I don’t particularly care if my state is right to work or not, because for as long as I can I hope to keep working jobs where I can’t be covered by a union anyway.
This is a valid description but not the correct label. What you describe is called “at-will employment.” The right-to-work statutes say that employment cannot be denied to someone based on whether or not they are a member of a labor union.
What are the alternatives? Serious question. Are there laws that prevent you from getting fired?
The closest thing I think we have to that is tenure in academia. I think the board can technically boot you out, but it takes a LOT to lose a tenured position.
Lots of places that aren’t the US have much more stringent requirements in terms of notice periods and “just cause” for termination. Very broadly speaking, in many of those places, employment is a contract whereby an employer just owes an employee much more than they would in the US, like not terminating them without good cause. Since the employee has that contractual right, they can contest termination in ways US employees mostly can’t do, unless a union or some other relationship makes it so. At the very least, if they are gonna fire you, they have to give you a notice period and pay you during it.
I suspect a lot of what US employers can do generally is not consciously on Martini’s mind when he talks about how unfair being “cancelled” is.
The only laws that protect someone from being fired are federal laws that prohibit discrimination against a protected class [race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history)]. In Virginia you can be summarily fired without notice and for no reason at all and have no recourse if you cannot prove discrimination as above.
Many employers, especially big ones with lots of lawyers, practice defensive documentation to guard against lawsuits based on discrimination, so they tend to go through an escalating process of documenting job performance problems before a firing (performance review, warning letter, performance improvement plan, firing when they do not meet the plan requirements). However, none of this is required by law.
Thanks. To clarify, I live in the US, I was just curious how it could differ.
I remember one person boldly asserting, “I’m pretty sure I can’t get fired for something I write on Facebook!” I had to remind her that she was in the US now, and yes, she could be fired for any reason not protected by discrimination laws.
Depends on the state.
As an example, since I think I vaguely remember Martini being in Australia (sorry if that’s wrong and doubly if it’s offensively wrong), in Australia when it comes to termination you get all this, in terms of notice, none of which we’re entitled to by US law. Australians also get to argue that their dismissal was “unfair,” and if it is, there are protections in place. Obviously for us the recourse if our termination is “unfair” is, like, our friends will be sad with us.
Nitpick. Many (perhaps all) states have similar laws. I don’t disagree that absent federal or state protection under discrimination laws, most employees are “at will.” Privante contacts and union contacts can offer more protection.
Here are the list of reasons you can be dismissed in the UK. If they fire you for any other reason then you can potentially bring an unfair dismissal case against them.
If you are made redundant there are laws about proper procedures and minimum notice periods etc, and there are also laws on maximum hours you can work, minimum number of days holiday, etc.
Sadly they don’t apply to everyone as employers try to find ways around them, like using agency or contract workers.
The argument is that at-will employment benefits employees as well. Find a better job? Go ahead and quit. Two weeks notice is nice but not required. Hate your boss and work is giving you emotional problems? Quit. Can’t take one more day of minimum wage restaurant work with unmasked assholes screaming at you during a pandemic? Quit. In some ways this sort of flexibility is good, in some it’s bad. It would be better if it was mitigated with a better social safety system and healthcare system.
There are often some protections for large layoffs (mostly the WARN Act and similar state laws) which comes with some relief.