Luuuvely People, these Freepers

One of those patriotic, freedom-loving Americans at Free Republic offers us all a glimpse of one Freeper's vision of America:

"The day after the election I fired an employee who was an open Obama supporter. If more employers took this attitude we wouldn’t have a Communist in the Oval Office.

Why should anyone here have a problem with making traitors or supporters of traitors pay a price?" Free Republic

...and later...

"Last I heard my former employee has been evicted and the car has been repo’d. I’m also challenging the Unemployment claim because I made it clear during the hiring process that there is no room in my company for liberals or DemonRats. Thus, the individual lied when I asked about political leanings and was subsequently insubordinate, a particular concern in my line of business.

Supporting a traitorous rat of a President and a Congress full of quislings is not a matter of conscience. It is treason. The SOB got what he deserved. If more employers would take this approach we’d have a real conservative in the White House and the DemonRAT party and its followers would be eradicated. " Free Republic

So this scumbag fired someone for his politics -- and then challenged the unemployment claim.

And he brags about it.

Recently, there was a weirdly reassuring piece on Daily Kos about the Secret Service's reaction to the threats against President Obama regularly posted on Free Republic. Apparently the SS has contacted Jim Robinson frequently enough that he's felt compelled to post a message asking Freepers to tone it down.

I'm glad about that, but given other comments I've read from Freepers in which they take it upon themselves to personally punish fellow Americans who dared to vote for Obama (including writing down the addresses of homes that had Obama signs) it may not just be public figures in need of protection.

< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies>

There used to be these pond scum who'd run around boasting about how they beat the crap out of someone who looked to be a liberal at a public place and instead of having the cops called on them the people around cheered instead. I file this under the same heading, because there are lawyers out there who just live for taking scumbags like this to court.

saying they were going to fire all their Obama-supporting employees. I do believe in karma, and I hope she bites them in the ass. Any human being who could be happy or proud of causing harm or hardship to another human being is what I would consider evil. It's hard to believe we share the planet with such people. I'd venture to say most people go through life wanting to help others, and here you have someone out there actively working to hurt someone because of their ideology or belief system. This is the very mindset that allowed a people to justify exterminating 6 million Jews. It's horrific.

I believe in it too.

and I truly hope that word of this gets around and a whole lot of pissed-off Democrats (and maybe a few more decent Republicans as well) decide to take their business elsewhere, leaving this guy hanging on his own gallows.

He all but admitted discrimination in the firing...I'd have a labor lawyer on that in a heartbeat. I'd end up owning the company!

Politics is no more grounds for termination than a person's religion. It has nothing to do with job performance or provides just cause. Now if the Obama supporter was refusing to do his/her job, defiled company property or physically threatened someone, then there's "just cause".

I worked for many rushpublican and "conservative" bosses...and I was never ashamed to express my opinions when asked, but those things ended when the work had to be done. Inversely, as a boss, I've probably worked with many right wingers as well, but I don't ask as it has nothing to do with the business at hand.

The fact the asshole is bragging about what he did, and it being a rushpublican makes me doubt this boast is true. If anything, I'd hope the Obama supporter up and quit. If it is true, then I hope word of this gets to that person and he goes after the bastard for being fired for frivolous reasons.

"At will" employees (which most of us are) can be
dismissed at any time die any reason except for
being members of a "protected class".

This asshole is entirely within his rights; sad, but
true!

Tesha

But I wouldn't be surprised if some lawyer is willing to try to make
the argument that "the employee knew what the political requirements
were before they signed on so the termination-for-cause was justified."
They might even carry the day.

Reich Wing lawyers and Reich Wing judges are like that.

Tesha

it works because people believe and accept it as true.

Challenge illegal firings.

Not every wrong has a legal remedy. It is not possible, in fact, or even desirable for every wrong to have a legal remedy.

that was helpful

out of curiousity, why do you think it not "desirable for every wrong to have a legal remedy"?


(thanks for your insights/helpful info in this thread, btw.)

That's easy. Every wrong implies everything perceived as a wrong by, let's say, anyone of sound mind. This could include anything from blasphemy to having more than .92 children.

The difficulty might be in proving it, since an employer could use any reason.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

Other federal laws, not enforced by EEOC, also prohibit discrimination and reprisal against federal employees and applicants. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and 'POLITICAL AFFILIATION'.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on conduct to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. The CSRA also prohibits reprisal against federal employees or applicants for whistle-blowing, or for exercising an appeal, complaint, or grievance right. The CSRA is enforced by both the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

Employers And Other Entities Covered By EEO Laws

IV. Which Employers and Other Entities Are Covered by These Laws?

Title VII and the ADA cover 'ALL PRIVATE EMPLOYERS', state and local governments, and education institutions that 'EMPLOY 15 OR MORE' employ individuals. These laws also cover private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees controlling apprenticeship and training.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will

I won't use Wikipedia... Thanks though

But it'll take you a lot longer to read those than
to read the relatively-accurate Wikipedia article.

It's your time so your choice.

Tesha

The laws vary from state to state.

I would not take that employee's case in Georgia.



-Laelth

but wouldn't they be entitled to file in federal court under Title VII?

http://www.laborlawyers.com/files/3411_GA%20Law%20Serie...
Georgia has no laws prohibiting employment
discrimination on the basis of race, gender
(including sexual harassment), or national ori-
gin. However, Title VII of the federal Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which covers employers with
fifteen or more employees, does prohibit such
discrimination and retaliation against employ-
ees who oppose unlawful discrimination or who
participate in Title VII proceedings. Title VII
allows plaintiffs to sue for back wages, rein-
statement or front pay, and attorneys’ fees.
Plaintiffs may also recover compensatory and
punitive damages, the combined amount of
which may range up to $300,000 (depending on
the size of the employer), and are entitled to a
jury trial.

My understanding is that Title VII includes protection for political affiliation in regards to employers with more than 15 employees.

edited to add link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Title VII does not protect political affiliation (unless there's some new case law that I'm not aware of).



-Laelth

and not extended to employers with 15 or more employees?
There is no federal case law regarding "prohibited personnel practices"?

Other federal laws, not enforced by EEOC, also prohibit discrimination and reprisal against federal employees and applicants. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and 'POLITICAL AFFILIATION'.

answered my own question Sadly it's no. So maybe it's time we change that since it seems to be a violation of civil rights.

http://www.justia.com/employment/firing-wrongful-termin... /

And this makes a certain kind of sense. If a government employee could be fired for political affiliation, then the entire post office (for example) would have to hire all new employees every time the executive branch switched political parties. That would be disastrous and would wipe out the bureaucracy's entire institutional knowledge. As such, we have wisely chosen not to allow government employees to be fired for political opinions or affiliation.

The same protections have not been extended to private employees.

-Laelth

Nobody should have that much power over another person.

And, i think one would have a pretty good chance of winning.
GAC

Political beliefs are not. In Georgia, that employee would lose if he or she sued.



-Laelth

It depends to a greater or lesser degree on your state's statutes governing employment relations. Generally speaking, there is a presumption of a just cause standard for termination absent some explicit waiver of that protection in the employment contract. In essence, this means that either the employee's job performance must have an adverse impact on the employer's business in order for the employee to be terminated, or alternatively that the employer can no longer sustain the employee due to legitimate business reasons (falling sales, discontinued product line, downsizing, etc.). Unless the employer is a registered political entity, making the case that the employee's political affiliation is sufficient cause to terminate is a long and steep hill indeed (particularly with the confirmation of Hilda Solis as Sec'y of Labor).

on another thread, repukes are selfish people.

Do you mean "Republicans?"

I know lots of Republicans who are not selfish and are in fact very kind and giving on a personal level.

Do we have to engage in Free Republic stye name-calling in a thread denouncing Free Republic tactics?

If you are a republican, there is something wrong with your very soul (if you believe in that kind of thing.)

Ten years ago, I wouldn't say that. Now, anyone with any kind of human empathy or compassion has left the republican party.

OK, OK, *maybe* the really STUPID ones with a heart are left because they're so dumb they can't understand just how fucked and anti-human the republican party's policies actually are.

This kind of blind hatred is exactly what I'm complaining about. No doubt it feels good on some nasty level, but it's as destructive in its own way as alcoholism.

But it's getting harder and harder to find reasonable Republicans. Even in my own family, the die-hard Repubs that I used to have civil discourse with are now, at best, angry and bitter. Interestingly, the other Republicans that are more cordial and amiable now see themselves as "independents".

Regarding the selfish claim made above. Here's an interesting example from my family. Probably two of my most selfish close relatives were life-long Democrats (and not well liked). In 2000, they declared they had "seen the light" and became Republicans. We were not surprised.

...inwardly cold and selfish. It must be a terrible thing to be.

It must be an amazing thing to be able to look within every person you meet and know for certain what they are "inwardly."

People with souls and consciences and basic human emotions don't support the Republican party because they know it's wrong to destroy the planet and oppress and exploit and torture and kill people.

Basing such assumptions about a person's inner life merely because you dislike their politics is the very essence of political bigotry.

I've never met a Republican that was not inwardly cold and selfish. Never. Perhaps they are out there, but I've never met them.

It must be awful not to be able to perceive "inwardly" -- you only see "surface" when you meet people?

but they cling to a very selfish philosophy in life. They are giving and are generally kind to people they know. But when it comes to politics and economics, they get cold and vindictive in their rationalizations. They have a blind spot and I see it as their fixation on me-me-me. For example, won't support universal health care because they don't want to pay for others. All solutions to government issues are lower taxes - won't be happy until they pay zero...so they think. As kind and giving as they are to friends and family, they have no sense of being part of the common humanity, let alone an integrated part of an ecosystem. Business is about making money - period... no sense of the consequence of that narrow view.

I can only chalk it up to them believing in the fairy tales of the rich and famous that promise them superb wealth if only they do the same as them. And given that it does actually work for some in our cannibalistic version of capitalism, they continue to hold onto the dream and every excuse for ignoring the pain and suffering of men, women and children who work in sweat shops, as sex slaves, as indentured servants in coal mines and diamond mines, or who are just plain forgotten and die of hunger or thirst or long-remedied illnesses. But a little kindness is a crack in the armor. It's a little hope that they will wake up on their own. Because a rude awakening is a gentle term for something much harsher.

I have friends who are generous in their private lives but vote Republican. I dont know if it is the fox news that does it or what but at any rate I do have buddies that vote Republican, well at least one buddy and his brother.

and am close friends with many Republicans. Please do not confuse citizens with politicians or even religious leaders. The people I know are warm and kind. They just believe in certain principles that are no longer practiced by their affiliated party, like small government and lower taxes.

I have read this board long enough to know that there are cold and selfish liberals too.

I work in the DC area for one of those nefarious three letter agencies
(No, I'm not "Agent Mike")
We have a healthy mix of political outlooks here.
My partner here @ work is what I call a "I don't wanna pay taxes" Republican.
His sole criterion for candidates is "will this guy lower/eliminate my tax burden"
He listens to Bill Press in the morning and Rush in the afternoon.
Our political viewpoints are about 160 degrees out of phase and we have many animated political discussions, but avoid the major trap that BOTH parties have fallen into:
We don't conflate out personal/political lives.
We may disagree politically, but that doesn't change the fact that either would defend the other with our lives.

That is the tragedy of present day Washington.
Gone are the days where Senators/Congressmen would have knockdown oratorical battles on the floor and then go out to dinner afterwords.
If we REALLY want to get something done up on the hill, we need to get rid of the idea that the guys "across the aisle" are enemies rather than opponents.


I'm jus' sayin'.......


--MAB

P.S. Welcome to DU, dem mba!

"I don't want to pay taxes" Republicans are vile. They are spoiled, rotten brats who want all the benefits government provides, but they don't want to pay for them. They suck, and they are not worth defending. They are a drain on our national resources, and they are an impediment to necessary, collective action in the face of global economic disaster. If you think you just offered a defense for your "friend," you didn't. You proved he was a vile, selfish (and typical) Republican, as noted by the poster above.

Glad your beliefs are 160 degrees out of sync with his.



-Laelth

Most DUers don't consider name-calling part of the FR playbook and see it as totally acceptable. You can usually expect to be shouted down by a few people if you object.

Bizarre.

are not selfish on a personal level why is it that their party is against policies for the general good, e.g. univeral health care? Social security....unless it's privatized (to other repubs no doubt.) No, I don't mean Republicans. There was a time Republicans stood for better policy but that has slowly eroded over the last sixty years. I came from a family of Republicans and unfortunately they have fallen into the new repuke lot.


As far as the Free Republic tactics, I only know that I have painfully learned that turning the other cheek doesn't work. You give 'em an inch and they take three miles.

but our leaders are a bunch of wimps who are terrified of being called socialists so they go along with the minority parties games. They don't represent us well. I suspect the same can be said for Repub. people and their leaders.

After the fiftieth accusation that I was a traitor.
After the hundredth demand that I be "rounded up"
After the three hundredth time I was accused of "supporting terror"

All because I don't vote Republican.

I know, on a cerebral level that there are "decent" Republicans. There has to be simply by the way statistics work. I'm also entirely certain that they are terribly self-deluded people who keep company with those who would happily shit on my corpse after lynching me.

Take your concern somewhere else.

deal with this firing??? I mean, in these times it seems to me that it would be a crime to fire someone who most likely has a family to suppport, who may have been a long term devoted employee, etc.

The guy most likely doesn't have a business, There was no one to fire and there is no guy making an unemployment claim (well except maybe the keyboard kommando following his firing from a fast food joint)

Remember Freepers don't tell the truth, they just project their fantasies.

When reading that rant, I envisioned some 50-something loser sitting in a filthy, dilapidated house surrounded by garbage and piles of dirty laundry, stroking away (on the keyboard) prattling on about something he thought would make fellow freepers foam at the mouth.

I'd bet $20 you're right. No business, no employees, no unemployment claim other than his own, and no future. In short, just another freeper suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Just another freeper loser's wet dream.

It was my first thought when I read it too, and as I read the whole thing, I would feel safe in betting that it didn't happen. Also, I believe that political beliefs are personal, and probably fall under some type of discrimination - it was the unemployment part that REALLY made me believe the person was lying. I think the employee could cause him some major problems if he actually got fired for his politics, and the employer fights him getting unemployment benefits for that reason.

I find your concern interesting. For 6+ years "repukes" has been pretty much the shorthand for republican on this board, and you're the first person I've ever seen have a problem with it. Your defense of a repuke bragging about firing a Democrat is a bit odd, as well. It's discrimination, pure and simple.

If in fact, the person REALLY made them fill out a form stating they weren't Democrat's, it's doubtful the employee would go around offering their political opinions, particularly if their employer was a close-minded, outspoken repuke - the story is bullshit if I ever heard it.

Fictional.

forbidding an employer to fire someone for their politics.

...and the employee would win.

Not everyone who has grounds for a civil suit files a claim -- or has the money and time to file a claim.

In an "employment at will" state, employees can be fired for any reason except a protected reason (race, religion, gender, antional origin). Political beliefs are not protected.



-Laelth

business and hasn't "fired" anyone. It sounds a lot like the freeper urban legend email about the guy firing everybody who had a car in his parking lot with an Obama sticker. Most freepers are losers playing big time capitalist on the internets.

Didn't begin with "so, I was..."
Doesn't have any cops hiding in the nearby bushes or jumping out from behind a tree...
Absence of Faux News playing in the background...
Should have a car nearby with offending bumper stickers...
No co-workers/bystanders cheering him on....
And of course no weeping conversion at the end...

If it is a "Freeper Fairytale" it doesn't score very well.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

for their religion (a choice) but not their ideology (also a choice.)

Why is one protected and not the other?

I also don't understand how that's not voter intimidation/attempted vote fraud, even if "after the fact." If he's trying to unduly influence the votes of his employees, and threatening to fire them if they vote against his wishes, HOW is that legal?

that firing someone for that reason is inappropriate.

He would pretty much have to make something up to justify firing with cause. In an at-will state it's easy to fire someone based on political ideology. Blocking UI benefits on that basis is a another matter.

The reality is that this loser has probably has no business, no employees and no regular job.

I'm not saying you're wrong. What I question are the number of DUers who keep repeating this with such absolute conviction. I very much doubt that you "know" much at all about this person's offline life.

That employers sometimes fire people over politics is true. That an employer who does this would try to use that reason as a basis to block UI benefits is way below stupid for somebody who actually runs a business.

The post has all the signs of all bluster with no real attachment to reality, so there is every reason to doubt authenticity. That board is loaded with implausible stories like this one that they try to impress each other with. Military exploits, business success claims and "heroic" stories of confronting liberals are popular. They all like to project themselves as John Galt.

Oh, and I did use the term "Probably", not "Certain"

Insubordination is enough to deny unemployment benefits. Political beliefs are not enough to deny unemployment benefits. I would take the unemployment case, here, but not the discrimination case.



-Laelth

Democrats have not. In a nutshell, that's the test to determine whether the law will grant protection from discrimination.



-Laelth

religions (historically discriminated-against or not) are equally a protected class. You can't fire someone for being a Christian in this Christian-majority nation, either.

I think if religion is protected, then political creed should be protected too.

I was merely describing what the law is, and you are right. All religions are equally protected, just as all races are equally protected. Race and religion are protected classes. Political ideology is not.



-Laelth

So we're covered.

I can vouch for that. He sold me the 747's for ten million Amero's.

They make large purchases SO convenient!

want fellow Americans to die starving and homeless on the street, all because they have a different opinion.
This is the kind of dangerously fascist activity that conservatives thrive on.

He can spout off with his pathetic rant all he wants, but if this prick is supposedly intelligent enough to run a business (also very questionable), one would think he would have at least rudimentary knowledge of the associated laws. He's just stomping his foot like a sniveling 4-year old. If he isn't, his ex employee wouldn't even need a good lawyer to smoke his ass.

An employer can fire anyone at will, but then there are exception, lie whistleblowing or improper purposes. Depending on the state, this could be illegal.

political beliefs.

He (or she) has violated the employee's first amendment rights. A good lawyer would be able to prove the case

I'm not sure that's the same as winning the case itself, however. More likely it's grounds for creating new law.

The First Amendment only protects us from the government--not from each other. Otherwise, Skinner would be violating the rights of everyone he doesn't permit to post here.

I *do* think that if religion is a protected class for employment purposes, then ideology should be as well.

I don't think being fired from your job is the same as being banned from a message board. I'm a federal employee so my rights of political affiliation are protected in writing. For private employees, not so in most states. But if the employee's affiliation doesn't affect his or her job performance I think they can argue in court that their freedom of association was violated.

First amendment guarantees that Government cannot stomp on free speech. Private concerns can stomp away.

Got a source to recommend?

there ARE laws against firing someone for political beliefs

http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/reasons-to-hir...

labor laws vary state-by-state

you actually believe in this so called "at will" BS? You guys must be from southern states where you just give up on your rights.

Illegal Reasons for Firing Employees
There are certain reasons that you can never use to fire an employee.



SOURCE

This instance would clearly be considered a case of retaliation. Any employer would be aware of this, and why I'm convinced this freepazoid concocted the story.

That never, ever happens, right?

In this fairy tale, however, the employer makes no qualms about why he fired the employee. He did it in retaliation because the imaginary employee voted for a candidate the freepazoid author of this little rant hates.

forbidding termination on the grounds of politics (as there is regarding race or religion), I don't know that the employee would have any recourse beyond a civil suit. (Which tend to be expensive and time consuming.)

Most employers don't go around firing people for their politics, but it's naive to rule out that possibility.

And I've posted a link to support my position that the scenario within this fabrication couldn't pass a legal smell test if it bathed in Lysol for a week. Since you seem intent on going to bat for the fictional employer by introducing a bunch of convoluted "what ifs" intended to run the debate in circles, I'm beginning to wonder whether your reasons for posting here on DU aren't just a bit disingenuous.

All I'm saying here is that I wouldn't rule out an obnoxious Freeper also being an employer. I've known people to get fired for everything from their religion to their race to their sexual preference so, no, I don't rule out someone imagining he could get away with firing someone for their politics. I don't even rule out someone getting away with it, if the fired person is too poor and too preoccupied with day to day survival to contact a lawyer.

I'm not going to get sucked into your circular argument. The content of your posts speak loud and clear. You're no progressive. But let me ask you a question.

What's your freeper user ID?

than, "It's possible this guy does own a business and thinks it's within his rights to fire people for their politics?"

Now you're accusing me of being a "freeper?" Why?

<<The content of your posts speak loud and clear. You're no progressive.>>

speak for yourself only (Mr. Prosecutor/Judge/Jury), and please stop personal attacks.

Apparently some states have just enough stupid people who believe anything a boss says is OK.

Some of us still have cajones and file lawsuits for our rights. I'm sorry if you've actually fallen for this "at will" nonsense.

I did, and I was wrongfully dismissed. I could NOT get my job back or even collect damages because I stupidly signed away my rights to sue when I signed for arbitration. Big, big, BIG mistake, but my union's lawyers never bothered to explain the fine print. I would have sued the school district's ass big time if I had known arbitrators almost NEVER rule in favor of employees who are dismissed since they are paid by the district for their business (as well as the union, which is also a right arm of the district).

when it comes to wrongful termination than if you belong to a union. Now don't get me wrong, I support unions, but frankly they are more beneficial when they work to better conditions for all employees rather than individual ones. The key to the scam if you are a teacher and belong to a union, as in my case, is if you sign for arbitration to handle a termination, something you should NEVER, EVER, EVER do. The so-called "right" to a hearing, which is what "tenure" is about, is false security, for it makes it EASIER for an employer to throw you out on your ass, just as long as you consent to binding arbitration.

prohibitions against firing someone for their politics?

Seems to be a rather clear example of the relevant definition.

Retaliation: action taken in return for an injury or offense (dictionary.com)

It would appear that the action (firing) was in return (and specifically stated as such) for an offense (the employee voting for the Democratic ticket)

an employee alleged discrimination already forbidden under law -- that is, someone got fired for alleging racial discrimination. It does not appear to include cases where someone alleges discrimination that is not already illegal.

You can of course supply us with the appropriate citation in which retaliation is confined to discrimination, yes? Or is this merely a guess on your part?

And you could possibly allow us any further qualifiers you you seem to ad post hoc with each successive answer you are given...?

Chances are not one of these freepers really runs a business. Their businesses are like Joe the Plumber's. Imaginary.

When they claim to have wives and children, I don't believe them either.

That requires them to be successful. It's the internet. No one claims to be unsuccessful on the internet. Especially freepers, who must be rich to be considered successful by their own terms. Any one can claim to own a business on the internet. During the war, they were always in the military or their husbands were in the military. Why? because they thought it gave them unanswerable power.

Mainly, the way they talk, they are so authoritarian what woman would put up with them? you can just tell they are losers in that field.

I have no idea whether or not the guy in question actually has a business, but simply saying "He's a freeper so he must be en unemployed loser" is as silly as it is when Freepers say the same about people on DU.

No, I don't believe everything anybody says about themselves online, here or anywhere else. But simply disbelieving everything someone says because you dislike the person posting is every bit as naive.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

bigots who were "worth a shit" in that they made quite a bit of money -- even though they treated their employees rotten.

One would assume that successful employers would only include those who don't care about their employee's race, gender, or religion. Unfortunately, that's not how it always works out.

Oh, man. There is no way this person is telling the truth. Do you think even if this were true, he or she would actually have the gall to challenge the UI claim?

Have you ever been unemployed or even know the UI process? Trust me, any state UI office would laugh off such a bullshit challenge.

"He's a Freeper, so he MUST be an unemployed loser" at face value.

I'm in my fifties so yes, I've been unemployed.

Yes, I understand the UI process.

The fact that "any state UI office would laugh off such a bullshit challenge" does not mean the Freeper in question isn't an employer and wouldn't try to challenge the UI. (I know of at least one case where an employer threatened a challenge that everybody knew was completely bogus. Didn't stop him from trying.)

Other than you 'Knowing" someone who supposedly did this or thought that?

Freepers, the chance seems to be considerably less. The way he indicates he is going to march right up to the UIO and declare that there is no room in his company for liberals - wonder how the UIO can determine who is "liberal" and who is not for purposes of unemployment law - seems to show he doesn't really know much about it.

In my state you get unemployment unless you are fired for misconduct - and that has to go pretty far - you have to willfully go against the employer's wishes. Not having the right political views is not an exception. At least, in this state, it is tough to get your former employee denied.

He even offered me a part time job, which I was going to accept until he hired his daughter's boyfriend for a lot less than my asking price. He (the freep) got arrested for DUI and since driving is essential in his business, I told him that my price just went up.
He is now in a halfway house because of his third DUI arrest and no longer has his business. But he did have a pretty good business at one time. Alcoholism took him down. And I know he has a wife and kids because I've met them.