Playgirl Plays Rough: Fired for Political Views OK?

[Hobbes]

Should an employer be allowed to fire an employee based on the employee’s political views?

• Always
• Generally, Yes
• Generally, No
• Never

The Drudge Report recently published a story in which the Editor-in-Chief of Playgirl magazine admitted to voting for George Bush in the 2004 election.

It appears that this revelation has resulted in Michele Zipp (the Playgirl editor) being fired from her job, reporting that she: "received a phone call from a leading official from Playgirl magazine, in which he stated with a laugh, ‘I wouldn’t have hired you if I knew you were a Republican.’"

General Freedom to Contract

Anyone who followed the “Fired for Smoking” thread in the Open Forum a while back will know that I am generally a strong supporter of the freedom of individuals to enter into private contracts with minimal government interference. That’s why I supported the right of an employer to fire an employee for smoking, and that’s why I support the right of Playgirl to fire this woman for being a Republican.

In the smoking context, I think many people viewed the question from the point of view of the employee, asking: Do I, as an employee, have the right to smoke in my free time? But to me, it is just as legitimate to ask the question from the other perspective: Do I, as a business owner, have the right to fire someone without getting permission from the lawyers/courts/government?

Certain Limitations Still Apply

None of this is to say that there should be NO restrictions on the right of an employer to choose his/her workforce. I support anti-discrimation laws, for example, that would prevent an employer from hiring/firing on the basis of race. But unless we are talking about a group that has been victimized in the past, and is thus deemed to require special protection, I think there should be freedom of contract among the parties involved.

Where do political views fit in?

So where do people stand when it comes to a firing based on political opinions? Are Republicans a group which require extra protection under the law? Should ALL views be protected (what if the person is a neo-Nazi?)

Clearly questions like these may affect how one would vote in the poll. But to keep things simple, I decided to only go with only four choices. (There was also no room in the poll, for example, for "Yes, but only if the employee is a Republican )

[Tigerman]

I voted generally, no.

I too am an advocate of employers’ rights. However, unless the employee’s political ideology proved to adversely affect his/her job performance and or was likely to be substantially disruptive to the operation of the company, I do not think he/she should be discriminated against for his/her particular political ideology.

[butcher_boy]

[quote=“Tigerman”]I voted generally, no.

I too am an advocate of employers’ rights. However, unless the employee’s political ideology proved to adversely affect his/her job performance and or was likely to be substantially disruptive to the operation of the company, I do not think he/she should be discriminated against for his/her particular political ideology.[/quote]

I am with Tigerman on this one. (In fact I thank you for summing up my position so well )

I would only allow it if the employee’s political views involved a belief that others should be denied basic freedoms based race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc.

[smerf]

@Hobbes

Are Republicans a group which require extra protection under the law?

In Berkeley, absolutely.

Personally, I think it sucks. But, from a legal perspective, I believe that an employer should be able to fire an employee for any reason provided it is not based on the person being a member of a protected group.

[Mother_Theresa]

I also voted generally no.

One should be able to terminate an employee if he or she has serious personality flaws that interfere with his or her ability to perform the required duties and get along with other employees, customers, etc., and initially one might suspect that being a republicon, or worse yet a neocon, would inevitably mean the existence of such flaws and the corresponding inability to perform the job properly.

But, people like Tigerman prove that one can be a republican and still be a good guy and a good employee. Whoda thunk?

Apparently the case you cited is a good example of the above point. While I didn’t read the article, I gather that the employer had no gripe with the employee until being informed of her political stance; therefore, that stance obviously hadn’t interfered with her work ability.

On the other hand, in some cases it might. Playgirl’s just a girlie mag. Perhaps it might be more reasonable for the Washington Times or the Swift Boat Loonies Propaganda Committee to say “Democrats need not apply,” or for Democrats Abroad to refuse to hire Republicans, because in such cases being of the opposing party might inhibit ones ability to diligently perform the job. Terminating an employee upon discovering he/she lied about that qualification is more extreme, but might be justifiable.

[system]

It’s not like she’s working for the Nation or National Review, where such a firing might make sense. She’s working for a non-political (mostly) magazine - Playgirl - where her political orientation does not affect her job performance.

[Flicka]

I voted generally no.

The powers that be at Playgirl probably didn’t want to anger all the fairies who head down to B. Dalton once a month for their hunk fix.

[Screaming_Jesus]

I thought I read that Playgirl ceased publication years ago–that for some reason women and gays weren’t buying it. Guess not…

Meanwhile, somewhere, there’s a Republican being fired for appearing in a porno magazine.