Worker Protection, Homosexuality, Subway and a Logic Sinkhole

[FeatsofClay]

http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/09/subway-fires-former-gay-porn-star.html

Subway Fires Former Gay Porn Star

"22-year-old gay porn star Kurt Wild was fired from his day job at a Subway restaurant outside of St. Louis when a customer recognized him and threatened to boycott the fast food joint if Wild wasn't fired.

Wild says in an email:

Hey everyone.

I just wanted to tell everyone that I was just fired from my work at subway because I have done gay porn. A customer said they wouldn't even eat there at subway anymore because of my past work and said that if I wasn't fired then they would boycott the store. What I say is, if one person can try to ruin me everywhere I work... maybe I should take a stand and boycott their store too if they can't let people's privacy be treated right. I should have the right to work anywhere I can and it isn't right or fair that people can keep me from working simply because of a "gay" issue. If a girl did what we do it would probably be ok.. and if a guy does straight porn.. he is bragged about. When I do gay porn, I feel a bit lynched for the rest of my life. Not right. Thanks for reading.
- Kurt Wild" (BGay.com)

People have the right to make their own choices, and Mr. Wild should not be fired from employment due to sexual orientation and his former career in pornography. Sadly the state of Missouri does not have employment protections for people based on sexual orientation so Subway did not violate any laws.

I urge you to join me in calling on Subway to apologize for firing Mr. Kurt Wild at one of their St. Louis locations and letting them know we will not stand for this type of discrimination.

For specific store contact please type in St. Louis, Missouri.

http://www.subway.com/Applications/CustService/frmCustomerService.aspx



What kind of person recognizes gay porn actors and then demands they be fired? I am trying to imagine how the sentence is formed. "I watch a LOT of man on man porn and that sandwich artist is in Men in Back and I absolutely cannot enjoy my tuna melt with this massive boner!"

Wv also has a "Right to fire" mindset.(employment at will) You can be fired for anything short of race, age and gender. Big nose? Perfectly legal. Sexual orientation? Fire at will. In a bad mood? Fire whoever you want, the state is fine with it.

There is no angle to this story that makes any sense.

[AZRogue]

Is it a real story? It seems to me a neat way to get a lot of people to call up Subway and start yelling at them about gay porn. "Kurt Wild, you dumbass! Why does Subway stand against Gay Porn!??@!"

Cartman would do it.

To be serious, though, if it's a real story (which I'm sure it is, given some of the stupid things that happen each day) than that guy should be pissed for being fired. And Subway should be called on it. If they don't mind being publicized as a group of asshats who discriminate against someone for perfectly legal things they did in their past, than so be it. It doesn't matter if it was gay, straight, or robot porn, as long as the guy wasn't making a movie over my club sandwhich, what the Hell should I care what he did in the past?

The world is full of stupid people. And most of the rest of them are so busy worrying about petty bullshit, they might as well be.

[Pigs in Space]

Is subway even allowed to fire him for this?

It would seem dubiously legal to do so, to me.

[FeatsofClay]

Is subway even allowed to fire him for this?

It would seem dubiously legal to do so, to me.

Perfectly legal in many states. Including mine.

[Pigs in Space]

Perfectly legal in many states. Including mine.

You know, the US is a very odd place.

[cnath.rm]

Is subway even allowed to fire him for this?

It would seem dubiously legal to do so, to me.As long as you live in an "At Will" employment state, you can be let go with or without cause. However it isn't Subway the corp that fired this guy, it's a Subway franchise, so it was a local owner who made the choice, not that it's going to make a difference most of the time should this hit the mainstream press. (total agreement on the wtf reaction to recognising the actor and getting pissed about it)

You know, the US is a very odd place.Much truth here indeed. :D

[Hatter]

sandwich artist

:heh:

[Megamieuwsel]

:heh:

That's definately a "knowing grin" , isn't it?..

[Freedom Canadian]

Why does Subway stand against Gay Porn!??@!"

Especially since their main products are foot-longs and six-inchers. :D

[Varaj]

Especially since their main products are foot-longs and six-inchers. :D

You can get double meat too.

[Random Encounter]

I'm with everyone else reading the article thinking "how did the offended customer recognize him unless he watched gay porn?" this makes no sense what-so-ever too me. Unless it was a gay customer pissed that his favorite 'actor' doesn't do porn anymore since he found a lucrative job at Subway.

[Sobek]

What kind of person recognizes gay porn actors and then demands they be fired?
That's what I was thinking. How does one raise that stink without egg on their own face?

[Hatter]

There is too much missing from this story for it to have any credibility.

[there_is_no_bob]

I am a very odd person.

The following (comedy) is what I think happened.

Cast:
Jim, the Subway owner
Bob, the customer making a complaint.

Jim's head is bent over a desk. This is all that can be seen of Jim. Bob is similarly obscured, but is standing upright a few feet away from Jim.

Bob:I've got a problem, man.
Jim:What's that?

B:My wife is super pissed at me.
J:What? Why? Does she know?

B:*unh**yeah*No, no, but I got the wrong sandwich.
J:*oh, that's it* What? Why?

B:*thrusting*She *unh* sent me out to get her a six inch veggie...
J:*unh*..and?

B:Fucking Kurt Wild was serving me! Before I knew it I ordered a footlong beef with extra meat!
J:*unh*Couldn't you just say it wasn't right?

B:*unh*No! I needed the bag to hide my *unh* hard-on! You've got to fire the guy!
J:Fine. Hurry up and come in my ass, then I'll fire him.

[Lmik]

Excellent - in one quick spoiler NoBob has explained everything....except how a country can get away with having no job security or workers rights.

[Scarbonac]

That's what I was thinking. How does one raise that stink without egg on their own face?

That's not egg...

[Eliezer]

Is subway even allowed to fire him for this?

It would seem dubiously legal to do so, to me.

There are Federal laws about what you can fire employees for. They are limited to Gender, Race, and Religion (and a few others limitations, but that's largely it). On the state level it varies from state to state, but many states have essentially taken the stance that the rights of employees do not supersede the rights of employers.

If I were a business owner I would certainly like to be able to fire anyone on my staff that I wanted to without having to fill out a lot of stupid paperwork and go through weeks of formal processes to get the individual fired.

Think of it this way, I should have similar rights to fire someone that the employee has to leave work:

1. Employee can leave employment to get better paying job
- I should be able to fire him to bring in more productive worker

2. Employee can leave if they find the work environment distasteful of unlikeable for any reason
- I should be able to fire the employee for not getting along with co-workers, being a morale drag or me simply not getting along with him

3. Employee can leave for change in family status, moving for spouses job, going to school, etc.
- I should be able to fire an employee for changes in work environment.


In each of those cases I can fire them, but I would be seriously annoyed if I could not.

[Singularity]

This reminds me of when I managed a store for a well known mattress retailer in the Seattle area. There was this new girl who started working and I had to train her, so during the whole breaking the ice and getting to know her phase, I asked her what she used to do before coming here. She told me that she had been someone who did system setup. That immediately sent up a red flag. If someone did system setup for a company and had those kinds of skills, why would she choose to leave that in favor of a "lucrative" job in sales? So when I asked her some more questions about the types of systems, she was downright evasive, and it was also clear to me that she had no computer skills whatsoever. Still, she was good with the customers so I didn't push it any farther. I wasn't the one who had made the hiring decision.

So less than a month later, one of her friends dropped by the store when she wasn't there and that friend volunteered the fact that she had been a stripper. At that point, I was curious what would happen if the company were to find out. Since we had just gone through a corporate buyout, I wasn't sure what the new parent company's position would be. What I learned from one of the managers who had been there for years, was that she would lose her job if it were to become known.

Now personally, I have nothing against adult industry workers, nor did I think it would be particularly fair to her or her young daughter for her to lose her job over something she had done before coming to work there, so I kept that information to myself. I think it's bullshit that a company can discriminate based on previous employment. I can totally understand not hiring people because they've done things that are illegal, but canning them because they'd had to make a hard decision at some earlier point in their lives is stupid. There should be more laws protecting workers from losing their jobs to this type of discrimination.

[Varaj]

Now personally, I have nothing against adult industry workers, nor did I think it would be particularly fair to her or her young daughter for her to lose her job over something she had done before coming to work there, so I kept that information to myself. I think it's bullshit that a company can discriminate based on previous employment. I can totally understand not hiring people because they've done things that are illegal, but canning them because they'd had to make a hard decision at some earlier point in their lives is stupid. There should be more laws protecting workers from losing their jobs to this type of discrimination.

I agree it is total bullshit just not sure that the government should be doing the protecting.

[Hatter]

I agree with Singularity.

[doc]

People get fired for stubid stuff everyday, it's up to them to go to the labor board

[cnath.rm]

I agree it is total bullshit just not sure that the government should be doing the protecting.Agreed. It's a crappy situation all around with no real upside for anyone. (well except for the moron who complained, he gets an inflated sense of his own importance)

Think of it this way, I should have similar rights to fire someone that the employee has to leave work:

1. Employee can leave employment to get better paying job
- I should be able to fire him to bring in more productive worker

2. Employee can leave if they find the work environment distasteful of unlikeable for any reason
- I should be able to fire the employee for not getting along with co-workers, being a morale drag or me simply not getting along with him

3. Employee can leave for change in family status, moving for spouses job, going to school, etc.
- I should be able to fire an employee for changes in work environment.


In each of those cases I can fire them, but I would be seriously annoyed if I could not.Having worked with/in/for small businesses, I would agree on both sides of all three.

[Pigs in Space]

I agree with Singularity.

I'm sorry that you have to kill yourself now.


You were a cool dude, and will be missed.

[Hatter]

I'm sorry that you have to kill yourself now.


You were a cool dude, and will be missed.

Once I agreed with Izrador. I still feel the sting of shame.

[Radu]

No matter how irredeemably asshattish some folks may be, there is always the possibility for an occasional moment of lucidity. Feel no shame, Hatter. It could have happened to anyone.

:D

[The Winslow]

I agree it is total bullshit just not sure that the government should be doing the protecting.

Who else? Should there be private corporations that regulate how private corporations can behave? Or maybe the Church should be the one to make these decisions? Maybe we could buy a Space Monolith from Sufficiently Advanced Aliens (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SufficientlyAdvancedAlien) and ask it to arbitrate. Or maybe a vigilante justice system: "You fired my father, prepare to die!" It would be nice. Or how about no protection at all?

[Varaj]

Who else? Should there be private corporations that regulate how private corporations can behave? Or maybe the Church should be the one to make these decisions? Maybe we could buy a Space Monolith from Sufficiently Advanced Aliens (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SufficientlyAdvancedAlien) and ask it to arbitrate. Or maybe a vigilante justice system: "You fired my father, prepare to die!" It would be nice. Or how about no protection at all?

Or how about the people themselves; strikes, organizations, etc. I'm not sure taking away the rights of one person to protect the rights of another is a good idea unless there is some sort of overwhelming need for it.

[The Winslow]

Or how about the people themselves; strikes, organizations, etc. I'm not sure taking away the rights of one person to protect the rights of another is a good idea unless there is some sort of overwhelming need for it.

Like massive strikes that cripple the whole country until they're over? All western nations went through that during the Industrial Revolution. Sometimes the company called the army or mercenaries to shoot the strikers. And what was the eventual result of successful strikes? Legislation changes.

You can't seriously claim it's better if a conflict between an employee and an employer is solved by a strike than by a court settlement. In case of a large strike (showing a strong solidarity between the offended employee and his coworkers), the employer will lose a lot more than settling it in a more official way would have done -- because the strike will damage it in addition to whatever indemnity it has to give the worker to end the trouble. If the worker, on the other hand, has not enough support to organize an efficient strike, he or she is just losing money in another way and being ignored.

You need a neutral arbitrator to bring a fair resolution when there's a dispute between two parties. Being that arbitrator is the state's role. Setting the rules is one of the duties of the arbitrator.

[Varaj]

Like massive strikes that cripple the whole country until they're over? All western nations went through that during the Industrial Revolution. Sometimes the company called the army or mercenaries to shoot the strikers. And what was the eventual result of successful strikes? Legislation changes.

You can't seriously claim it's better if a conflict between an employee and an employer is solved by a strike than by a court settlement. In case of a large strike (showing a strong solidarity between the offended employee and his coworkers), the employer will lose a lot more than settling it in a more official way would have done -- because the strike will damage it in addition to whatever indemnity it has to give the worker to end the trouble. If the worker, on the other hand, has not enough support to organize an efficient strike, he or she is just losing money in another way and being ignored.

You need a neutral arbitrator to bring a fair resolution when there's a dispute between two parties. Being that arbitrator is the state's role. Setting the rules is one of the duties of the arbitrator.

Neutral arbitration* is fine as well, but that is a good amount different than it is illegal to fire somebody for reason x.

*Personally I would limit arbitration to actual damages for reasons of termination that would be considered grossly unjust by societal norms.

[Name Lips]

During the Industrial Revolution we had HUGE populations of people moving to the cities because they were no longer needed on the farms. All of these people were looking for jobs, because otherwise they would starve.

The factory owners had absolutely no incentive to provide living wages and safe working environments. None whatsoever. If a few workers got sucked into the works and died, they'd just hire more. Workers were completely dispensable, and were an infinite resource. They didn't have to worry about workers leaving for better jobs because there weren't any - either they risked their lives working for the industrialists, or they died slowly on the streets.

The workers literally had no power and no recourse. This is the environment into which unions and strikes were born - the only possible way for workers to get some sort of self-worth and power in a world that had denied them both.

I'm not sure they are as necessary now, because we have lawyers desperate to sue large companies, we have the labor board, the better busienss buereau... workers are no longer an infinite commodity - if a place is too terrible a place to work, eventually workers will abandon it entirely and it will go out of business. And more and more jobs are requiring specific training or education that isn't easy to come by. You can't just piss off workers any more - they feel empowered, not helpless.

Maybe there are still some industries where unions are a necessary buffer against a horrible industry that abuses workers. Fine. Keep the unions if necessary. But I see many unions that seem to exist simply to justify their own existance, not to benefit their workers.

[Varaj]

During the Industrial Revolution we had HUGE populations of people moving to the cities because they were no longer needed on the farms. All of these people were looking for jobs, because otherwise they would starve.

The factory owners had absolutely no incentive to provide living wages and safe working environments. None whatsoever. If a few workers got sucked into the works and died, they'd just hire more. Workers were completely dispensable, and were an infinite resource. They didn't have to worry about workers leaving for better jobs because there weren't any - either they risked their lives working for the industrialists, or they died slowly on the streets.

The workers literally had no power and no recourse. This is the environment into which unions and strikes were born - the only possible way for workers to get some sort of self-worth and power in a world that had denied them both.

I'm not sure they are as necessary now, because we have lawyers desperate to sue large companies, we have the labor board, the better busienss buereau... workers are no longer an infinite commodity - if a place is too terrible a place to work, eventually workers will abandon it entirely and it will go out of business. And more and more jobs are requiring specific training or education that isn't easy to come by. You can't just piss off workers any more - they feel empowered, not helpless.

Maybe there are still some industries where unions are a necessary buffer against a horrible industry that abuses workers. Fine. Keep the unions if necessary. But I see many unions that seem to exist simply to justify their own existance, not to benefit their workers.

Lots of wisdom in this post.

[cnath.rm]

Maybe there are still some industries where unions are a necessary buffer against a horrible industry that abuses workers. Fine. Keep the unions if necessary. But I see many unions that seem to exist simply to justify their own existance, not to benefit their workers.Having spent 10 years in MI, this fits in rather well with my experience and feelings on the subject.

Still waiting to hear reasons why a small busines owner shouldn't have the same ability to fire that a worker has to quit. :D

[Pigs in Space]

Having spent 10 years in MI, this fits in rather well with my experience and feelings on the subject.

Still waiting to hear reasons why a small busines owner shouldn't have the same ability to fire that a worker has to quit. :D

I think there are still plenty of jobs where union organization is the only way to get things to happen, even today. Teachers and nurses in Australia spring to mind.

I don't disagree that an employer should be able to fire an employee for incompetence, or make their position redundant (restructuring/whatever). But I do believe that it should be illegal to fire someone when the reason is discrimination. Which is seems this case is, definitely.

In OZ, it's like that, but you need a legit reason for termination of employment. If he wanted to, I'm sure he could sue, based on discrimination.

[AZRogue]

Eh, I don't mind unions. When I was younger I was a member of the United Autoworker's Union while I worked at Revlon managing their production of their Colorstay and New Complexion foundation lines. Arizona is a Right To Work state so you didn't have to join if you didn't want to, but you still got the benefits. I joined, though, because I felt bad not paying dues while they were "fighting for my rights" and stuff.

Then they closed the plant and moved it to another state where the unions held more power ... as part of the new contract the union negotiated. I was bitter. ;)

[Varaj]

Eh, I don't mind unions. When I was younger I was a member of the United Autoworker's Union while I worked at Revlon managing their production of their Colorstay and New Complexion foundation lines. Arizona is a Right To Work state so you didn't have to join if you didn't want to, but you still got the benefits. I joined, though, because I felt bad not paying dues while they were "fighting for my rights" and stuff.

Then they closed the plant and moved it to another state where the unions held more power ... as part of the new contract the union negotiated. I was bitter. ;)

I don't mind them at all, just think in most cases they aren't needed and in some cases are damaging. Just as in some cases they are good.

[The Winslow]

Checks and balances, people. Both employers and unions are bad. You've got to make sure both are two occupied fighting each others to screw over the workers. :)

More seriously, unions may seem to be just bloated, useless dinosaurs in several areas, but without them as a counterweight you can be sure that the conditions that led to the creation of unions in the first place would come back.

[AZRogue]

Checks and balances, people. Both employers and unions are bad. You've got to make sure both are two occupied fighting each others to screw over the workers. :)

More seriously, unions may seem to be just bloated, useless dinosaurs in several areas, but without them as a counterweight you can be sure that the conditions that led to the creation of unions in the first place would come back.

I'm not sure if that's the case any longer. Workers, IMO, are filled with a sense of empowerment and would be all too willing to seek litigation before things got that far. We don't have unions here in Arizona (other than a very tiny percentage where the company is large and has unions elsewhere in the country) and things haven't gone to hell in a handbasket.

It's pretty tricky, though, the balance. I don't pretend to know enough to formulate a truly educated opinion.