September 14, 2004

At Enviromate, "You can work for [Phil Gaddis] or John Kerry," but not both. Enviromate: a happy sort of factory, where paychecks come wrapped in pro-Bush fliers. ("Just so you know, because of the Bush tax cut ... I was able to give you a job.")

When I worked in the lawsuit-phobic corporate world, we frequently had to compile up to ninety days' worth of documentation before firing people for the most egregious behaviors. Does this on-the-spot dismissal, apparently prompted by a pro-Kerry sticker on a Chevy Lumina, have the potential to allow Ms. Gobbell to move up to a Lexus?

posted by MadeByMark 20 years ago
  • Anyone have the number for Enviromate down there in Alabama? I'm thinking of putting in a phone call.
  • Looks like she was a bit too Metro for that plant.
  • EnviroMate Insulation 13855 Court Street Moulton, Alabama 35650 Phone: (256)350-0442
  • So, rocket888, what did they say when you called them?
  • Didn't...just responding to MM's request above.
  • Well, first of all, I wouldn't work for either, but I think in a time where people constantly pressure people not to buy products from companies or countries that have policies we disagree with (be it Wal-Mart for their labor practices or Frace for their stance on Iraq), I think it is time we also look at who we work for. If I wouldn't buy from someone because of their stance on issues, why would I want to work for them. Of course I realize that is easy for a single, childless person to say, but there should be some grain of truth in it. So rather than ask, "Can he do this?" we should ask, "Why would you work for someone who WANTS to do this?"
  • Look, why do you people immediately assume that it was because of the sticker? I mean, just look at her. She was probably terrible at her job. Add her in-your-face partisanship and her ungratefulness at the tax cut to that, and I say good riddance. There is no place for divisive politics at the workplace.
  • MadeByMark - I'm sure you could not fire a manager, or indeed anyone with the money to hire a lawyer and the desire to fight it without good cause. But this woman has already decided not to hire a lawyer; I wouldn't be surprised if it was because of the cost. My family once hired a lawyer to fight an eviction based on a neighbour's slander - we had to pay $1000 upfront. If I hadn't been saving for tuition, there is no way that we would have had the money, and probably would simply have moved. Actually, my mother was later fired without good cause, but chose not to fight it (it was a complicated personality thing with a recently hired person - they were incompetent and arrogant, but outranked her) - at least her boss did the decent thing after he cooled down, and told the employment office he was laying her off (no question about insurance then). jccalhoun - I'm sure that she doesn't really want to work there now (I would have wanted to quit after the first flyers), but she may not have a choice. It's hard even to leave a nasty workplace when you don't have any savings to fall back on. And fuyugare, what do you mean by "look at her"? How could anything, anything, about her appearance reveal how well she performed her job? Unless of course you would like to share the basis for your suggestion - the look in her eye (as she poses in the bright sun)? Which kind of prejudice were you using? As for the divisiveness of politics in the workplace, not only was the sticker on her car, not in the workplace, but her boss was the person who first introduced the politics in a very inappropriate manner. And I'm so sorry she's ungrateful about the tax cut - maybe she has just been suffering (like the majority of Americans who got diddly squat) from the crap that has fallen on them because of it. I know that after the tax cuts in Ontario, no one I knew saved any money, but it cost me several thousand dollars more in tuition that doubled (or more). I still got out better off than students still in the elementary and secondary systems - so I guess that makes me "ungrateful".
  • Hi, might I suggest that you unclench a little? *sneaks away*
  • Besides, no one I know has received a tax cut. A lot of people have received a tax deferment but, in the absence of cuts to government spending, no tax cut.
  • Sorry, fuyugare, but that would be rather messy, especially as I am in a public place. But how else could someone possible interpret "just look at her"? I was just asking which of several possible prejudices (against fat, squinting blond women wearing white sweaters) you were choosing to go with at the time.
  • e) All of the above.
  • Actually, fuyugare, I'd kind of like to hear you respond to jb's comments. Your way of thinking about this is so alien to my own that I'm intrigued. More generally, what do people think are the boundaries of the personal and political in the modern workplace? Should political discourse stop at the workshop door? Should employers be given the same deference in 'private life' issues as they are in matters of business?
  • Your way of thinking about this is so alien to my own that I'm intrigued. Oh, my way of thinking is actually rather muddled. I read about this incident and think "Hah!" Then I think about posting some approximation of a radical response, expecting that if I make it outlandish enough the humorous intent would be obvious. Everyone then proceeds to take me seriously. I then think "hmm, maybe a </sarcasm> tag or two wouldn't have hurt." Then I think "but, I shouldn't have to tag things. Sarcasm should be self-evident." Then I realise that this isn't the first time I've been misread on MoFi, and then: "OK, this is the last time I try this stunt." Except now I'm thinking "Hmm, now that I have bothered to write down this meta-analysis, and it is obvious that I am no good at being witty, maybe I should actually learn to keep quiet." I expect my next thought will be: "man, what a total derail! I'm so fucking full of myself."
  • ummm, I interpreted fuyugare's comments as sarcasm. Was I wrong? (on preview, never mind) As to Dreadnought's question, it's a good one, and it's one I struggle with- my employers lean far further to the right (one of the frighteningly far) than I do, and frankly I'm not terribly comfortable talking politics with someone who both a) signs my paycheck and b) thinks that George W. Bush is the best president the US has ever had.
  • Sadly, there are those who would say what fuyugare did with complete sincerity. The sincerity of a bigot or a bully (or a neo-conservative -- hi, Mr. Rove, if you're reading!), but sincerity nonetheless. Sarcasm can be tough on the 'net (especially in emails). The lack of vocal inflection can make detecting it very difficult. So let go of your self-flagellation, fuguyare! Finally: Any lawyers out there who can confirm my suspicion that this company's behavior is illegal? I'd love to get a job there, then get fired because I voted for Kerry, then sue the absolute fuck out of them. The ACLU should be all over this, methinks.
  • I'm sorry I missed the sarcasm, fuyugare. I know having to tag things makes things less funny but, as we've all re-learned today, things like sarcasm just don't read well over internet-text. It's not your fault that we didn't pick it up. It's very difficult to convey something complex like irony in a few lines of text to people who don't know you personally. If it makes you feel any better, I've frequently made the same mistake, but the other way round. Turns out people get really offended when you say 'ha ha, good one!' about their sincerely held political views. With the internet being what it is, you can't assume that somebody is being sarcastic, merely because they're saying something ridiculous.
  • I'm sorry, too, fuyugare, for starting all this. I am afraid that sarcasm doesn't always translate even in real life, let alone the internet. (Also calling people anal doesn't actually help suggest you were joking, because nine out of ten times if you offend someone with a joke like that, it's because the sarcasm hasn't worked. Just a word of advice.)
  • Thanks for the news, polychrome. That's a brilliant move by Kerry, and I hope it gets a lot of attention. What were the idiots at Enviromate thinking? I used to work with a guy who ate beans every day for lunch -- that's far more offensive than identifying for others for whom you're likely to vote. I hope she does sue them anyway.
  • I once had a similar experience, although I didn't get fired. A co-worker complained to my supervisor that my stickers on my vehicle were unprofessional. The one my co-worker was referring to said *Life is short, don't be a dick* My supervisor suggested I remove them. I declined to do so. Nothing more ever came of it after that. Now, after that incident, I search for outrageous and potentially offensive stickers, just to push the buttons of people like my co-worker. I know its a little evil, but the attitude just rubs me wrong. This type of action on her employers part is so wrong, in my opinion. The right to free speech extends to your property (vehicles). An employer should not have any say as to what is displayed on an employees vehicle. An employer should have no right to censor the employees political stance, in any way.
  • If my employer wants to give me use of a company car and pay for my gas, then they can tell me what bumper stickers to put on or take off. I think it's absolutely brilliant that Kerry hired her. I just wish I wasn't feeling so pessimistic about the election.