Budweiser Employee Fired for Drinking Coors

[halik]

thats idiotic - why not let your employer change you completly so you fit it? Not even using their product, but believing in it?
In order to get hired you must convert to thinking that Bud is the best beer evah. Otherwise you get canned :roll:


The company pays you for the work you do for them. Unless the guy was their media advertiser or employed in promoting their product, THEY HAVE NO SAY AS TO WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IN HIS SPARE TIME.
The guy is getting paid for driving a beer truck, not for being the spokeperson/ media symbol for budweiser.

When you sign up for a full time job, you don't sign your life away...

 

[Zee]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
fvking retarded .
unless he signed something saying he represented the company at all times then there is no legal basis for his firing. even if he ordered a round of coors for the house.
he will win.
here at the bank our officers are liable for their conduct outside the bank/work hours. but they have to sign an agreement to this when they get the position.

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

If Budweiser can prove that drinking another brand of beer is a 'Conflict of Interest', then they should have an open and shut case. Somehow, I don't think that will happen though...

Should bookmark this. He will not win. The Corporations Rule as Amused said.

yeah, the company has the right to fire anyone it pleases unless it's blatantly due to some type of discrimination

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: KLin
I hope he wins his lawsuit.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: halik
thats idiotic - why not let your employer change you completly so you fit it? Not even using their product, but believing in it?
In order to get hired you must convert to thinking that Bud is the best beer evah. Otherwise you get canned :roll:


The company pays you for the work you do for them. Unless the guy was their media advertiser or employed in promoting their product, THEY HAVE NO SAY AS TO WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IN HIS SPARE TIME.
When you sign up for a full time job, you don't sign your life away...

Guess you didn't get the Memo about people fired for smoking at home.

Guees you guys have not heard of the "Right to Work State Laws"?

Another misleading Law name that means that Companies can fire you for no reason.

That is what Law Amused was referencing to.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

Achtung United Republican Corporations and Religious Republican Churches of America

You blithering fscking idiot. If you take away a business man's right to hire and fire at will, you supplant his rights, to create rights for others.

The flip-side would be making it illegal for you to quit a job for whatever reason you choose.

How would you like laws like that? Of course you wouldn't.

Your inability to think things through, and incredible shortsightedness is what leads to your incredibly stupid viewpoints on politics and social issues.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

where did you get this from?

Federal law?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: halik
thats idiotic - why not let your employer change you completly so you fit it? Not even using their product, but believing in it?
In order to get hired you must convert to thinking that Bud is the best beer evah. Otherwise you get canned :roll:


The company pays you for the work you do for them. Unless the guy was their media advertiser or employed in promoting their product, THEY HAVE NO SAY AS TO WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IN HIS SPARE TIME.
When you sign up for a full time job, you don't sign your life away...

Guess you didn't get the Memo about people fired for smoking at home.

Guees you guys have not heard of the "Right to Work State Laws"?

Another misleading Law name that means that Companies can fire you for no reason.

That is what Law Amused was referencing to.

Employment is a MUTUAL AGREEMENT. An employer has no more obligation to employ you, than you have an obligation to work there.

Just as you can take a job and quit at will, an employer can hire you and end your employment at will.

Anything else would be supplanting one person's freedoms for another.

 

[vi edit]

/me scratches off another company I'd never consider working for.

They can join the likes of Pepsi, Coke, and most unionized manufacturers that are so self conscious about their products that they resort to gestapo tactics like this to prove their "superiority".

 

[SandGnome]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

where did you get this from?

Federal law?

On the application to most jobs it has some kind of legal wording saying that both you and the employer have the right to terminate employement without cause.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

Achtung United Republican Corporations and Religious Republican Churches of America

You blithering fscking idiot. If you take away a business man's right to hire and fire at will, you supplant his rights, to create rights for others.

The flip-side would be making it illegal for you to quit a job for whatever reason you choose.

How would you like laws like that? Of course you wouldn't.

Your inability to think things through, and incredible shortsightedness is what leads to your incredibly stupid viewpoints on politics and social issues.

I am a blithering fscking idiot but the rest you have all wrong.

I didn't say to take away the rights of Companies to hire and fire, merely not allowing them to abuse that right.

Based on YOUR shortsightedness you believe it is perfectly OK for Companies to fire someone after 20 or 30 yrs of service and fire them 1 minute before they are eligble for retirement so the Company can screw them over.

How sweet :roll::roll::roll::roll:

 

[krcat1]

Originally posted by: meister
what happened is clear.

the son in law of the major share holder-- read IE OWNER, offered him twice to get him a Bud, he declined. then was fired. it pissed off the owner that someone in his employment was drinking the competition.

not probably the best reason to fire someone, but you have no idea how competitive some markets are and you don't need employees that don't believe the gospel you are preaching.

Unless you are someone working for a guy by the name fo Jesus, Budda, Jehovah, etc. you have no right of demand anyone believe in your "gospel" for any reason.

Demand your employees 'believe in the company gospel' is a form of idolatry.
Another word for that is sin.

The only companies that have a right to demand that type of loyalty are those that are being shot at, and those that have men/women of the cloth in charge.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

Achtung United Republican Corporations and Religious Republican Churches of America

You blithering fscking idiot. If you take away a business man's right to hire and fire at will, you supplant his rights, to create rights for others.

The flip-side would be making it illegal for you to quit a job for whatever reason you choose.

How would you like laws like that? Of course you wouldn't.

Your inability to think things through, and incredible shortsightedness is what leads to your incredibly stupid viewpoints on politics and social issues.

I am a blithering fscking idiot but the rest you have all wrong.

I didn't say to take away the rights of Companies to hire and fire, merely not allowing them to abuse that right.

Based on YOUR shortsightedness you believe it is perfectly OK for Companies to fire someone after 20 or 30 yrs of service and fire them 1 minute before they are eligble for retirement so the Company can screw them over.

How sweet :roll::roll::roll::roll:

Unless they have a written contract, it is within their rights to fire them. JUST as it is within the employee's rights to quit just as a major project is underway, or due.

Want to ensure your retirement? Save for it yourself. This is why private IRAs and private pension accounts are so popular now. If you have a time based pension, YOU agreed to the risk. If you don't like the risk, ask for a contract. If they refuse, work elsewhere.

Just as soon as people like you grow up and realize everyone, not just you, are out for themselves, the sooner you can function within society.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SandGnome

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

where did you get this from?

Federal law?

On the application to most jobs it has some kind of legal wording saying that both you and the employer have the right to terminate employement without cause.

Exactly. Employment is a MUTUAL AGREEMENT. No party has any more, or less rights than the other.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

that's great. they're suing under colorado state law.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

that's great. they're suing under colorado state law.

Oops, I see that now.

Well, let me amend my post to add that I disagree with the CO state law here, and believe it is an unconstitutional violation of employer's rights.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

Oops, I see that now.

Well, let me amend my post to add that I disagree with the CO state law here, and believe it is an unconstitutional violation of employer's rights.

by operating in colorado the employer is implicitly agreeing to the law and assuming the risk, to use some of your language

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Oops, I see that now.

Well, let me amend my post to add that I disagree with the CO state law here, and believe it is an unconstitutional violation of employer's rights.

by operating in colorado the employer is implicitly agreeing to the law and assuming the risk, to use some of your language

Well then, this is a good case for a constitutional challenge to the law, no?

 

[mordantmonkey]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

that's great. they're suing under colorado state law.

Oops, I see that now.

Well, let me amend my post to add that I disagree with the CO state law here, and believe it is an unconstitutional violation of employer's rights.

state law. that's what i figured. and i don't find the state law unconstitutional.
not exactly the same as your right to quit. A persons livelyhood depends on employment, but a company doesn't rely on one person. if it does the company would be stupid not to have a contract. besides the fact that someone has to protect their own resume and is not likely to quit for some illegitimate reason. a company like AE can fire people on a whim and it won't make a damn bit of difference.

but yeah most places make you sign a contract stating either of you can terminate employment for any reason. but this contract can't conflict with law. for instance, firing based on race.
not sure about state law, maybe he doesn't have a case there either.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
i don't find the state law unconstitutional.
not exactly the same as your right to quit. A persons livelyhood depends on employment, but a company doesn't rely on one person.

Laws are not based on needs. They are based on equality of rights.

IMO, this state law gives the employee more rights than the employer and is therefore unconstitutional.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Oops, I see that now.

Well, let me amend my post to add that I disagree with the CO state law here, and believe it is an unconstitutional violation of employer's rights.

by operating in colorado the employer is implicitly agreeing to the law and assuming the risk, to use some of your language

Well then, this is a good case for a constitutional challenge to the law, no?

i don't think the law is unconstitutional. obviously, employment at will can be modified by contract. this could be analyzed as becoming a part of all employment agreements signed in colorado.

 

[labgeek]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Oops, I see that now.

Well, let me amend my post to add that I disagree with the CO state law here, and believe it is an unconstitutional violation of employer's rights.

by operating in colorado the employer is implicitly agreeing to the law and assuming the risk, to use some of your language

Well then, this is a good case for a constitutional challenge to the law, no?

And what constitutional right would that be based on? Remember that little idea of state's rights?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: labgeek

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Oops, I see that now.

Well, let me amend my post to add that I disagree with the CO state law here, and believe it is an unconstitutional violation of employer's rights.

by operating in colorado the employer is implicitly agreeing to the law and assuming the risk, to use some of your language

Well then, this is a good case for a constitutional challenge to the law, no?

And what constitutional right would that be based on? Remember that little idea of state's rights?

Remember the clause of Equal Protection under the law? Giving some individuals more rights than others is unequal.

 

[mordantmonkey]

Originally posted by: Amused
Laws are not based on needs. They are based on equality of rights.

ADA?
equal rights for equal circumstances.
an employer is not the same thing as an employee. there are plenty of laws about employers having to provide saftey measures for their employees. while the employees aren't required to provide it for themselves.

 

[Summitdrinker]

boycott BUD
I don't drink coors neither

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey

Originally posted by: Amused
Laws are not based on needs. They are based on equality of rights.

ADA?
equal rights for equal circumstances.
an employer is not the same thing as an employee. there are plenty of laws about employers having to provide saftey measures for their employees. while the employees aren't required to provide it for themselves.

You're barking up the wrong tree. I oppose the ADA and OSHA.

Sorry.