My one and only post on Olberman.

[NaturalHigh]

I don't want my employer to have the right to suspend me because of my political donations. Frankly, I don't watch KO and don't even know that much about him, but ANYONE in this country should have the right to participate in the political process.

[Skink]

1. He must of signed something.

how else would they know?

[slackmaster]

2. Many jobs, including mine, come with conditions that limit one's exercise of basic freedoms

I can't dress as I please. I have to be here at certain times, and on call most of the time.

I can't participate in any kind of political forum on the Internet, unless I am careful not to reveal my real name.

There are many things I cannot say or do, that are perfectly legal but which I have agreed not to do while employed here.

If you don't like the conditions that come with a job offer, you have the option of turning down the offer.

[Drix]

3. You don't surrender your rights as an American for employment.

Can your employer tell you who to vote for?

[BzaDem]

5. Yeah, actually, you do. The legal ignorance around here is stunning.

Your right as an American citizen is the right to speak free of Government interference. You have NO constitutional right to work at your current place of employment. None. If you want to speak, you absolutely have the right to leave your place of employment and then do so. That's it.

[Posteritatis]

8. You often do, in any number of ways

Rights to speech and expression are routinely - and generally quite severely - curtailed in most jobs, something which, regardless of what I might think about it, is enthusiastically cheered around here all the time. Interfering in elections is explicitly forbidden by federal law, but there isn't too much else that is.

Does the Olbermann situation suck? Yes it does. Is his employer legally allowed to impose restrictions on political contributions if he signs a contract agreeing to it? In all likelihood, yes. Does that suck? Yes it does.

[slackmaster]

10. Did MSNBC tell Keith Olbermann who to vote for? Did their policy in fact prohibit him from donating?

I'm not seeing any kind of equivalence there.

[haifa lootin]

15. Not unless you have contractually given them that power.

Not to defend M$NBC here but it's beginning to look like K.O. either didn't understand the terms of his contract (seems unlikely) or decided to ignore them (a possibility, because he isn't a moron) in which case he has something very interesting in mind...
shrug

[sabrina 1]

12. And Keith, so far as we know, did not violate MSNBC's

own rules. The rules are clear. There has to be 'conflict of interest' for one of their employees to have to report to them. There is no conflict for Keith, everyone knows he's a Democrat.

The only other way your post would make sense would be if it is in his contract. Have you seen his contract? If this was in the contract, Griffith would have said so, he didn't.

He tried to blame it on NBC, but they have now stated that he was wrong.

I hope he sues them. It's about time to stop the silencing of the most progressive voices in this country. People are getting pretty sick of it.

[slackmaster]

19. Evidently MSNBC doesn't see it the way you do

:hi:

[BzaDem]

4. You don't have a constitutional right to work at your current place of employment.

If you want to speak or contribute, you absolutely have the right to leave your place of employment and do so. The First Amendment says that the government shall not restrict your right to free speech -- NOT that a private party can't condition a voluntary contract on limiting of speech.

After all, you have the right to make negative comments about your boss to the press, but you don't have the right to remain employed after you do so.

[gateley]

6. He signed a contract that, although he wasn't forbidden from contributing to

a candidate, an okay is needed from the powers that be before the contribution can be made. It appears it's not unusual in media organizations, maybe so the employer is aware and won't get blindsided if an employee votes for a KKK candidate or something? :shrug:

KO didn't get the go-ahead, and that's what violated his contract.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just trying to tell you what we've learned, if you haven't been reading any of the posts.

[gateley]

7. He signed a contract that, although he wasn't forbidden from contributing to

a candidate, an okay is needed from the powers that be before the contribution can be made. It appears it's not unusual in media organizations, maybe so the employer is aware and won't get blindsided if an employee votes for a KKK candidate or something? :shrug:

KO didn't get the go-ahead, and that's what violated his contract.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just trying to tell you what we've learned, if you haven't been reading any of the posts.

[regnaD kciN]

17. Actually, as many have pointed out, this is NOT true...

There is a rule forbidding NBC's own reporters from contributing without notifying their superiors, but NBC's own standards department has said that this did not apply to MSNBC, or to opinion-show hosts.

[gateley]

18. Maybe Rachel will address this in her statement. It's what I read in a couple of

places, not sure what the sources were. What are the sources for the "reporters only", any idea?

[TomClash]

9. And in NY there is a law that does precisely that

NY Labor Law 201-d

[kelly1mm]

11. K and R for the comments - not the OP. nt

[Skink]

13. This should go all the way to the Supreme court.

[BzaDem]

14. It won't. The district court judge would laugh it out of court, the appeals court would agree, and

the Supreme Court would not take the case.

This is really not difficult. However much we hate what MSNBC did, Olbermann does not have a Constitutional right to work for MSNBC. If he wants to exercise his first amendment rights, he can free from entering into a contract which limits him from doing so. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents such contracts -- the Constitution only protects you against GOVERNMENT speech suppression laws.

Likewise, if you want to tell off your boss in public, you have that right, but you do not have the right to continue working for your boss.

[apocalypsehow]

20. +1. n/t.

[haifa lootin]

16. That would not produce the result you (or perhaps KO) would want.

Sorry...