2007 Senate Bill 460: Ban employment decisions based on advocacy group membership

Legislation watch

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Sen. Ray Basham (D) on April 26, 2007, to prohibit an employer from making employment decisions based on an individual's membership in an organization or advocacy group.
- Referred to the Senate Commerce & Tourism Committee on April 26, 2007.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) School Legacy Costs Out of Control by Anonymous Citizen on May 3, 2007
Great article.
http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15688464&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472539&rfi=6
Reply

Line

2) Why would you want to work there? by changeagent on May 3, 2007
Since you were good at what you do and fired anyway, why would you want to work there? Life is too short to put up with that. I own a dealership and would love to have another productive sales person. However, if you were an active member of the Nazi Party or NAMBLA I may not want you working for me.
Reply

Line

3) Professionalism by Anonymous Citizen on May 1, 2007
I agree strongly with the separation of work and any political affiliations. In my personal situation, I obediently was very cautious to his reputation and the best interest of his business.

I faithfully as a dedicated employee with several accommodations before his ownership always placed the best interest of his business first, keep in mind this was my lively hood and any rational person can separate the indifferences of the two.

I was always prompt and on time arriving generally before management. Each individual case has its own set of issues. I was an employee referenced as white collar, considered an independent contractor of automobile sales. Dealership principles recognize each representative as an independent contractor. Continuously we cautioned we were renting our office space to divide profits of sales.

At the most I may have received a phone call from a supporting senator, never was my employment mentioned by the media or me verbally. I actually requested to the media do not show a presence in the area of my employment in person or reference.

This employment action was taken merely out of preemptive measures to ensure this exposure would not become affiliated with his entity. In this particular situation, it was performed with out grounds to support his actions or decision. This bill would eliminate and protect employees that use common decency in there decisions.

This dealer principle went to the extent of calling me into his office and stating if I knew you were involved in this, I would not have had you on as an employee.

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation