DUer fired - mailed NPR this letter regarding it...

[liberalitch]

To whom it may concern,

I, in good conscience, can no longer donate to NPR as I have for 20 years. I discovered through a liberal website to which I belong that a friend of mine was fired for allegedly planning to sabotage radio tribute to Reagan. We belong to these websites in order to express ourselves in these dark days of the Bush Administration, the things we type we type for our friends to see and comment on.
The person in question was fired from NPR affiliate WHIL 91.3. This person may or may NOT have carried out the covert sabotage that may have offended Reagan's supporters, but we will never know. This is because a Conservative trespasser of this site reported the off hour exchange on a leisure website to the boss of the person in question and they were fired.... having not actually done anything wrong. This action is indicative of a trend toward the elimination of our right to free association and speech in this nation.
In the 1950s in Montgomery, Al. the power of the purse strings won desegregation of the public buses. I am hoping that I am not the only one to feel this way and that I am not the only one to act on it. Perhaps one day NPR will again be an arena where even the employees will be free to express themselves on their own time.
Until then,
liberalitch (of course I used my "govt" name)

[rastignac5]

1. It's not NPR's decision

All public radio stations are independently run and operated. Mail the letter to the specific station.

[Walt Starr]

2. The national organization can pressure the local station

I now boycott everything to do with NPR because of one station in Alabama.

[rastignac5]

3. NPR doesn't influence specific stations

They only produce programming that stations choose to purchase or not. Trust me- it's better to direct your complaints to the station.

[burythehatchet]

5. Problem is that you're punishing all the NPR affiliates

AS far as pressuring, I for one want there to be less pressure from any organization on local radio stations. We do not want to follow the clear channel path, we want to destroy that model.

[Walt Starr]

I won't have anything to do with any NPR station any longer because

one station in Alabama followed Freeper marching orders, plain and simple.

They get national funding, ergo, this thing is a national concern as far as I'm concerned.

[gWbush is Mabus]

4. no offense, but if an NPR employee was planning to sabotage

what the station was doing, that seems like a good reason to get fired.

i wouldn't want to pay an employee of mine who was going to sabotage my business.

or am i missing something?

[Options Remain]

6. yeah there definitely needs to be more info

if the station took action they need to provide evidence or face a wrongful termination suit. If the person in question actually did make the claim to take the action here and they can prove it he was legally terminated.

TearForger

[Walt Starr]

7. Read the thread

he had a personal dillema and asked for ideas. He never said he would sabotage what the station was doing.

I think he was more looking for how he could follow the letter of the directive without going overboard more than anything else.

[msmcghee]

12. Is that kinda like how . .

. . Bush* dealt with the torture thing?

[tabasco]

8. No. And we have a right to punish NPR if we so desire.

No more money from me. Firing someone for an exchange on a message board may be legal, but harsh and stupid IMO.

[Walt Starr]

9. ALL NPR stations

PEeiod. Not a thin dime to one because one NPR station in Alabama took marching orders from Freerepublic.com

[liberalitch]

16. There is no proof that that our friend...

would have actually carried it out.... we will never know. It's not like anyone's life was in danger... for all we know all of this was just talk....
I talk about choking and slapping some of my co-workers all the time.... I would never actually do it and i would hate to think i that I would be fired for such fantasy

[Walt Starr]

17. Precisely, what we have here is a THOUGHT CRIME!

Damn, why can't people see this? (you excluded from that statement for obvious reasons!).

[Bandit]

22. When you do something before the fact you are wrong

That is why we don't arrest people for saying they would like to rob a bank. You should at least do the deed but this is Bush* Amerika where we can invade a sovereign nation because we say they are thinking about maybe doing something in the future. This person was fired for expressing an opinion only. They did not do so on the air or while at work. What if I said, I hate my boss and my job and wish he would go bankrupt, in a chat room, should I be fired?

[Jade Fox]

25. He was speculating, anonymously, on an internet board....

about what he might do. "Sabotage" is a pretty strong word
to use about making changes in radio programing.

It sounds as if the person who fired this guy based it entirely on the
Freeper's email. The DUer was fired for admitting only that he did
post here, I believe. That scares me, being a poster here myself.

[thebigidea]

29. so ironic song selections qualify as "sabotage"?

[LuminousX]

62. Talking about doing something and doing it are two different things

especially when we are talking about non-criminal acts.

No sabotage was planned.

[Misunderestimator]

63. Read this from the employee:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1770898&mesg_id=1770898&page=

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Bunny]

13. You may be right, but, don't you think the manager could

have called him in, told him he's heard about a possible sabotage, and warned him of the consequences if he followed through with his thinking?

Firing the guy, who had not even implemented the plan, seems a little bit harsh, doesn't it?

[msmcghee]

15. Have you ever been an employer?

Although his boss doesn't own the station, he owns his own career and his reputation in broadcasting and should be protective of those.

He depends on his employees working in good faith to help him get his job done. He could have been fired and even blacklisted from working in public radio if his employee had carried through with the plot.

I have employees. Every day, everything I own (not much) is on the line. I could lose it in a heartbeat if someone sues me for something one of my employees did. I probably couldn't even afford the lawyer to defend myself. It is critical that my employees work in good faith to help me carry out my vision for the business - and never work opposite to those goals. If my goals are uncomfortable to any employee I'd hope they would talk to me about it. I might change them or I might let them work on a different project - or I might suggest they look for work elsewhere.

I'd say any employee even having such a discussion about plotting to sabotage the station's message would be grounds for firing. It is way over the line. It means he doesn't understand the basic employer / employee relationship that he signed up for.

[Bunny]

24. Um, yes. I am an administrator, with direct responsibility for

dozens of employees. And I would have handled the situation exactly as I outlined in my previous post. Not just because it would be the correct way to handle it, IMO, but also because my employees are covered by a union, and I would not have been able to fire them for an offense like this. Not without due warning and etc.

[msmcghee]

28. I don't know what your company does . .

. . but I find it hard to believe that if an employee was having an on line discussion about how to sabotage your company's business and was discovered . .

. . that your response would be to call him in, tell him you've heard about his possible sabotage, and warn him of the consequences if he followed through with it. If so, I'm glad you're not working for me.

If you found that your husband (assuming you are married) was having some very serious discussions with somone online and e-mailing about meeting up with her at the Ramada this weekend, would you call him in, tell him you've heard about a possible affair, and simply warn him of the consequences if he followed through with it.

[KharmaTrain]

56. I Agree With You 100%

I posted on this yesterday...as a former radio GM, PD & OM, there seems to be a bit more missing to this story than what we are reading...as is many personnel matters. We don't know the individuals involved, their past relationship and the conditions of this person's employ (if he is employed at all...since this is a public station and many are staffed primarily by volunteers).

As A PD, I was stuck in personality battle with air staff and other management types...and had to let people go for not following format or management directives. This is understood to be the terms of the employ. It's like a manager of a sports team who has to have the final say on who bats where and plays where. The last thing you want to see is one of your players second guessing your line-up on a message board.

There's a lot of assumptions going on here and, as always, a rush to judgement...but I do applaud you for your insight into this matter.

[Jade Fox]

33. He was honest when asked if he posts at DU. Should he have lied?

It probably would have saved him his job. So much for employer/employee
relationships.

Employees lie to their bosses all the time when they
disagree because they don't want to risk it being "suggested
they look for work elsewhere".

[msmcghee]

39. You raise a good point.

I'd say if an employee is asked to do something that they don't like, they have two choices . .

They can say "I don't want to do that because . . " or they can do it anyway and not say anything. If they choose the latter it is because they don't think it is important enough to lose their job or their employer's full trust over.

But if they do it - they should do just as good a job as if they approved of it. They owe that to their employer and to their own sense of honesty.

(Assuming it's not something immoral or illegal) it is not being dishonest to do something that you don't approve of when your employer, parent, sargeant, whatever - asks you to do it. That's part of living on earth with other people and cooperating with them to get a job done, earn a living, etc. Besides, in all those cases, we agree ahead of time to do that. Marriage contracts, military enlistment, employment applications, etc. In child / parent relationships that is implied.

IMO it is being dishonest to tell them that you will do it and then sabotage the effort.

That would be my take on it.

[Bunny]

42. Um, yes. For over 20 years, thank you very much.

I'm an administrator, responsible for dozens of employees.

We don't know Misanthrope. Perhaps he's the type of person who makes a lot of noise on the "anonymous" internet, but would never dream of actually carrying out his plan. There are a lot of big talkers out there, folks who like to vent their frustrations, etc.

Maybe he was really fired for using the company computer on company time. He didn't state that as the reason, but maybe it was. Maybe DU had nothing to do with it. In that case, he's screwed.

Perhaps he's a freeper plant, who was never fired at all, but just made up this story so we would all shake and shiver at the almighty and all powerful Free Republic.

Or, maybe he actually would carry out his plan. If that was the case, his boss could have sat him down beforehand, asked him what was up with the DU thing, and then warned him about the consequences.

That's what I would have done.

on edit: I'm glad I don't work for you, either.

[liberalitch]

18. SEEEEEEE!!!!! my thoughts exactly!

Instead they threw the baby out with the bath water

[tom_paine]

19. You make some very good points here, msmcghee

It was indeed stupid of him to do what he did publicly, and to identify himself.

But my rage at the Freeper Monsters is boundless.

[msmcghee]

23. Mine too.

I probably would have felt the same way if I was asked to do the "praise Reagan" programming.

But knowing me I probably would have told my boss to fuck off - and got fired for that instead of sabotage.

That's also probably why I have my own business. :eyes:

[Jade Fox]

27. He did not intentionallly identify himself, the Freeper figured it out.

[msmcghee]

31. Bush * did not intentionally identify . .

. . the Plame leaker. But Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury has probably already figured it out. Does that mean Bush* and Cheney* should keep their jobs?

[Jade Fox]

35. That's a really silly analogy. It doesn't even make any sense.

[msmcghee]

41. OK, maybe I missed your point . .

. what was it?

[Jade Fox]

55. My point was he did not publically identify himself. He thought he was..

talking anonymously among friends. He was naive about who was lurking
here, and to what to what lengths the lurkers might go to figure out who he
is, and to use his words to cause him damage. He revealed too much.

Changing the focus to what "misanthrope" did wrong from the malicious
act of the Freeper, who, lets remember, went out of his way to do serious
damage to a stranger, seems like blaming the victim. I hate whipping out
that tired old phrase, but I don't know how else to put it.

[msmcghee]

58. Because he didn't intentionally identify . .

himself, we are blaming the victim? Still looking for the point.

[Jade Fox]

60. Please don't simplify what I wrote to make it sound stupid....

If you don't get my point from rereading my post, then I am unable to
explain myself.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[thebigidea]

30. and you come across as a fountain of compassion

[Cheswick2.0]

32. and you come through as full of shit

what was that flame bait thread you posted yesterday and never came back to?

[msmcghee]

47. I'm surprised Cheswick.

Most of your posts have been pretty thoughtful it seems.

[candy]

66. What are the rules?

I wasn't aware we were required to return to a post within a certain time.

I do have a life and it sometimes interferes with my internet use.

How thoughtless of me!

[info being]

52. A decent manager might have had a heart to heart with the employee

[never cry wolf]

61. He was NOT indending to disobey a programming request

The directive, AFAIK, did not specify what music was to be played. He selected music about AIDS, blacks, ecology, tyranny and deceipt.

What would raygun's public utterances be on these subjects?

Plus, there is no proof that he was going to actually carry through or if he was just blowing off steam.

[Misunderestimator]

64. You need to read the thread... the employee did NOTHING wrong:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1770898&mesg_id=1770898&page=

[bowens43]

11. Sounds to me like your friend

was the one who was working toward the elimination of our right to free association and speech. If he made a threat to disrupt the broadcast he deserved to be fired.

[liberalitch]

21. Friend of OURS.....

a fellow DUer.....

[Cheswick2.0]

34. nonsense

he did nothing but talk about his displeasure at having to carry out the directive and speculated about how to live with himself. He didn't actually DO anything to carry out his plan.

[eleny]

14. Hope it's okay that I borrowed a bit of your language...

Here's my letter to NPR. Iwas planning to send my contribution while paying bills at the end of this month. Thanks.

NPR,

I will no longer donate to NPR. I discovered through a Democratic bulletin board where I am a member that another member was fired for "allegedly" planning to sabotage a radio tribute to Ronald Reagan. The person in question was fired from NPR affiliate WHIL 91.3 in Alabama. This person had no intention of carrying out sabotage that may have offended Reagan's supporters. But a Conservative visitor of the site alleged to the boss of the person in question that it was going to happen and the person was fired.... having not actually done anything wrong.

Since NPR is a party to the elimination of our right to free discussion in this nation, I can't in all conscience contribute to NPR.

Hopefully, NPR will wake up if they feel the lack of support.

Until then, I'll take my support elsewhere. Air America Radio is selling merchandise. I'll use my NPR contribution to purchase products that help publicly advertise their efforts.

[liberalitch]

20. Often when people read the same words used for the...

same purpose they understand the unity behind the sentiment.

[grasswire]

37. I object to use of the word "sabotage" here

It brings up to the uninformed person a level of action that was never considered. In today's terror-aware world, "sabotage" could mean something quite frightening.

The DU-er merely considered playing music that would subtly counter the official spoken message he was forced to give the listeners. Many listeners wouldn't even know of the sarcasm. It was a mild (and not unprecedented) manner of communication.

So, please, when you are writing, dial down the rhetoric about what our DU-er did. He CONSIDERED playing some ironically meaningful music. That's all.

[Walt Starr]

43. And would have still been in compliance with the directive

SHEESH! Some people just don';t get it. We're all endangered if the Freepers can successfully go after somebody for a THOUGHT CRIME!

[msmcghee]

51. The Freepers are as close to an act of God . .

. . that I can imagine. They are like an earthquake or a tornado. You should assume that they will cause damage because that is who they are. That's their job.

The best defense is honesty - not becoming devious like them. It would have saved this guy his job.

[msmcghee]

45. He asked for help figuring out . .

. . how to send a message that was deceptively opposite of what his boss asked him to do. That's sabotage - even if only a few inside friends knew what was happening.

He didn't want to do what he was asked to do. So, instead of discussing it with his boss he asked his friends to help him find a way to get out of it.

That's just what Bush* has done with this whole torture thing.

[RossMcLochNess]

36. Before you all stop donating to NPR...

some more facts need uncovered. If this person was using a company computer and posting on "company" time, then he did deserve to be fired. If this is the case, than it has nothing to do with censorship, political beliefs, etc. The firing sounds legal (insubordination) on its own but if he was posting on company time, he's dead in the water. Its NOT NPR's fault. Plain and simple. To punish NPR because of someone's(who had ZERO ties to NPR) not-very-bright act is foolish.

[Walt Starr]

38. READ THE GOD DAMNED ORIGINAL THREAD!!!

LOOK AT THE TIME ON THE ORIGINAL POST!!!

[MessiahRp]

48. LINK?

I keep reading "Read the original post!" Well link me to it.

Rp

[ieoeja]

54. LINK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1755097#top

[ieoeja]

53. 1:03 in the afternoon

misanthrope broadcasts between 10:30 and noon. But I don't know what other hours this individual has to spend at work. So knowing it was posted at 1:03 in the afternoon doesn't really tell me much.

[grasswire]

40. maybe not

>>>If this person was using a company computer and posting on "company" time, then he did deserve to be fired.<<<

Maybe, maybe not. Radio personalities often use the Internet as a working tool even while they are on air.

What were his instructions from employer to employee regarding Internet usage? If he wasn't forbidden to use it, he can't be fired for doing so.

[Norquist Nemesis]

44. Tell us where you got your detailed information please.

[markses]

46. LOL: Perhaps the most counterproductive protest letter ever written

He may or may not have "carried out covert SABOTAGE" if the station manager hadn't stopped him? I think the manager's gonna get a promotion on the basis of this letter!

[TexasMexican]

49. Sounds like the person who got fired...

fucked up.

[ieoeja]

50. What Freeper wrote that for you?

Please tell me you didn't use the phrase, "planning to sabotage radio tribute to Reagan". That is exactly how I would phrase it if I were opposed to the DUers actions (which I was, but not to such an extreme). I certainly wouldn't phrase it like that in SUPPORT of the alleged perpetrator.

[msmcghee]

57. For Jade Fox and bunnyj . . .

. . just because we have a different take on this doesn't mean that I don't respect you opinion.

Politics is OK but this kind of topic is the most interesting for me because when you are dealing with things like honesty, morality, honor, deceit, etc. there are so many different ways to look at it. And it's hard to figure out which way is the right way.

This guy's story could have come from "Lord Jim" in another time.

Remember, I despise RR and everything he stood for. But, offering one more facet . .

Public radio is user supported and also receives some public funds. The public funds are from our taxes . . liberal and conservative.

Asking the announcer to program one musical "contemplative" piece per hour doesn't seem like such a burden under the circumstances.

If he objects to giving Reagan any "credit" through his programming perhaps he should not work for a station that is partially supported by taxpayers. That, or suck it up.

[slashdot]

59. WHY NPR?

WHY NPR?

[Javaman]

65. This whole thing reaks of misinformation...

The person in question wasn't named. Nor was the act he was "supposed" to commit wasn't stated, just a general term of "sabotage radio tribute to Reagan". There are no details regarding the firing. Frankly, I don't believe anything in this thread. I'm still giving to NPR.