Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on April 26, 2007

Click here to view bill details.

Being a parent’s rights advocate, I have personally experienced the abuse of authority of an employer. My employment was openly terminated because of my affiliation with many organizations that address controversial issues of opinion. This was relayed through the chain of command of management after I was noticed in news stories by several media sources. The owner through his management group openly expressed I cannot have Mr. Richardson representing my organization while pursuing issues of such controversy. For 3 months, my direct manager argued that this does not affect my production of work noting I was salesman of the month and a top producer for the company. After my direct manager constantly argued on my behalf he was forced to terminate my employment exercising at will hire policy Michigan holds. This was noted throughout the dealership, many employees supported me in my fight of parental rights including that of the staff of the office often asking questions on the progress holding an interest. My Direct manager resigned after this determination and walked off the job 3 days later. Douglas Richardson. The victimization we face does not end in the family courts. I support a bill that secures the freedom of speech.

your place of employment in the news media, then I feel he is right in terminating you. You are tying his business to your causes. Freedom of speech is not the issue. Your representing yourself as an employee of this business in the media may give the indication the business supports your causes and cost him customers, just as wearing buttons or other items that support your causes, while on the job might do.

Our communities loose a lot of good leadership potential because of employers who don't want their employees visibly involved in advocacy (political or other) activities that may be or become "controversial." As long as person's employment is a simple biographical fact -- an entry on their resume -- and one does not use his or her employment or employer's resources in directly supporting or advancing that advocacy, then the employer should properly stay out of the matter. The flip side of this is employers who coerce employees into becoming advocates for certain causes which they do not necessarily support as private individuals. The United Way giving campaigns are notorious examples of how employers often do this. One should not have to give up his or her private beliefs or participate in causes he or she personally rejects in order to earn a paycheck, to the extent that those private beliefs do not demonstrably have a direct effect the job he or she does for the employer.

does government need to be involved in every aspect of our lives? This is another feel good, look at me I'm doing something piece of flotsam.

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.

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.

Great article. http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15688464&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472539&rfi=6