Posted on 10/15/2009 4:42:41 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – A Springfield Mass Transit District bus driver has received a one-day unpaid suspension for wearing a pink necktie to help raise awareness for breast cancer. The driver, 46-year-old William Jones, had to serve the suspension, but his action led the transit district to agree that employees could wear pink on Fridays October in recognition of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Jones, who said he planned to file a formal grievance, said he has had a number of relatives who have battled cancer, including a grandmother, a sister, several cousins and a niece.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Good grief, what next?
Oh come on. He knew there was a dress code, he should have asked if he could get an exemption before wearing it.
Wanna bet that they don’t do jack squat to drivers who actually screw up on the job?
He should have worn a pink dress. Then he’d have the ACLU in his corner.
There are four characteristics of a rebellious spirit:
1. One’s own way is the better way.
2. Rationalization (and cover up).
3. Defensiveness.
4. Resistance to accountability.
Is anyone in civilized areas of the world really not “aware” of breast cancer? I really don’t see the point.
This person should get a medal. How many of us have had cancer touch our lives?
The bus driver is just another liberal “pink bully”:
Kramer’s AIDS walk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSnB9XCMRaI
1. "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" - R.Adm. Grace Hopper
2. Don't you have a zero-tolerance school somewhere to administrator?
exactly! just step into a supermarket and see all the cans, bottles, boxes, packages etc., that are decorated with the pink ribbon symbol... watch an NFL football game and see the players with pink shoes and gloves...
“2. Don’t you have a zero-tolerance school somewhere to administrator?”
LOL! This guy is a grown man, with a job, not some misbehaving school kid. Sorry, but I don’t see why I should have a lot of sympathy for him when he knowingly violates his employer’s rules and then whines to the media about it instead of accepting the consequences (which are pretty mild in fact).
Cancer has affected lots of people. I just don’t see what reason there is to praise this man for. He decided to violate company policy, was punished for it, and now he’s trying to use the union to strongarm his employer instead of manning up and taking responsibility for his own mistake. How exactly does that help cancer victims in any way?
OK. GOOD GRIEF.
For wearing a pink tie for one day? What are we, a nation of emasculated sheep?
This kind of stuff is so silly.
Hey, if he wants to wear a pink tie, he’s free to do it on his own time. He’s a bus driver, there is obviously a uniform and this wasn’t part of it. If he doesn’t like the rules, he’s free to ask the boss to change them, allow an exception, or look for another job. Instead, he chose to flaunt the rules, so he should accept the consequences.
What would happen if he wore a bowtie?
Maybe he should wear pink nail polish instead.
And what about the driver who will wear a Confederate flag patch on his uniform to honor his relatives and all others who died and survived in the Civil War? Maybe all this pink stuff has run it's course anyway.
Sometimes freethinking people can doing some small thing that is slightly outside the rules, and still be ok.
Society has so many goofy rules, that people will always break a few.
I was in a bank last Friday and all the tellers were wearing football jerseys.
When pink has been demonized and PC’d to the point of the stars/bars your point would have minimal consideration at best.
That, hands down, is one of the funniest shows to have ever been on television. I still enjoy watching the reruns.
ROFLMAO! Good one!
Sure, but if you get caught, the right thing to do is not to whine to the media or bring the union in to try and extort your employer.
Anything on how to counter those characteristics? Millions of Administration apparatchiks want to know!
Zero Tolerance: A scheme whereby administrators get to have all the perks of authority without doing any of the work of leadership.
Go ask your working mom.
Wow. This one’s a real head-scratcher...
Pshaw.
Shedding the light of reason onto the darkness of stupidity is always the right thing to do.
Really? A guy violates a dress code that he voluntarily agreed to abide by, then tries to wriggle out of the consequences like a coward. That’s what you are trying to paint as a noble act? Gimme a break!
I thought conservatives were in favor taking responsibility for your own actions, not praising these kind of weasel tactics.
Ah, a chairborne ranger! I love it when you whiners get all angsty and start tossing around insults. Hey, it's not like you have to worry about eating teeth for calling people names, right?
I thought conservatives were in favor taking responsibility for your own actions, not praising these kind of weasel tactics.
Says the guy that tosses around bomb words like "coward" while safely seated at his computer.
If you can't make a cogent argument without resorting to name calling why should anyone care about anything you say?
“Ah, a chairborne ranger! I love it when you whiners get all angsty and start tossing around insults. Hey, it’s not like you have to worry about eating teeth for calling people names, right?”
Oh give me a break. The man got a one-day suspension for breaking the rules at his job. Instead of admitting he knowingly broke the rules and taking the penalty, he whines to the media and the union. I’d call him a coward to his face if he was in front of me, I doubt he would do anything more than whine some more about it.
“Says the guy that tosses around bomb words like “coward” while safely seated at his computer.
If you can’t make a cogent argument without resorting to name calling why should anyone care about anything you say?”
I’ve made a cogent argument repeatedly on the thread. If people can’t understand why the man is acting like an adolescent by behaving like he did, then I really don’t care whether they think about me or my opinions.
Yes, so cogent that no one is paying attention to you. So you resort to name calling.
The guy broke a rule.
A stupid, pointless rule.
The management fought back in the same old stupid, thoughtless way.
So he upped the ante and they folded.
I'm sorry if you think that gooberment and corporate managers are some kind of philosopher kings that do no wrong and are only looking out for our best interests. The reality is that most people that make these idiotic policies have the IQ of a turnip. They need to be called out when they make these pointless PC policies.
bttt
This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when Kramer refused to wear the AIDS ribbon.
Walker #1: Hey where's your ribbon? Kramer: Oh, I don't wear the ribbon. Walker #2: You don't wear the ribbon? Aren't you against AIDS? Kramer: Yeah, I'm against AIDS. I mean, I'm walking, aren't I? I just don't wear the ribbon. Walker #3: Who do you think you are? Walker #1: Put the ribbon on! Walker #2: Hey, Cedric! Bob! This guy won't wear a ribbon! (Cedric and Bob turn around and look at Kramer) Bob: Who? Who does not want to wear the ribbon?
“The guy broke a rule.
A stupid, pointless rule.”
It was a dress code, which is certainly not pointless. Letting one employee violate it with no consequences opens the door to any employee violating in any way they see fit. Perhaps a male bus driver would like to wear a dress to work, or another to wear his “I Love Satan” t-shirt. If the employer then tried to clamp down, he could be sued for discrimination.
“The management fought back in the same old stupid, thoughtless way.”
Not stupid, and not thoughtless, for the quite sensible reasons I outlined above. I think anyone who has ever had to run a business and deal with unions and litigious employees would be able to testify to that.
“I’m sorry if you think that gooberment and corporate managers are some kind of philosopher kings that do no wrong and are only looking out for our best interests.”
I never said anything of the sort or even implied it, so I have no idea where you are getting that nonsense from. The man is an employee who entered into a mutually voluntary agreement with his employer. Nobody coerced him to work for that company or agree to abide by the rules, he did it of his own accord, and then broke the agreed upon rules of his own volition. He has nobody, therefore, to blame for the consequences of his actions but himself. Like a typical liberal, however, he decided to try and shirk that responsibility and garner public sympathy, and you seem to have fallen for the bait.
This one was. Apparently wearing a pink tie violated some fool's sense of fashion.
Not stupid, and not thoughtless, for the quite sensible reasons I outlined above
You didn't outline any reasons other than, "There were rules! They made rules! OMG rulez!"
I think anyone who has ever had to run a business and deal with unions and litigious employees would be able to testify to that.
Which obviously rules you out since one of the most important criteria to be a successful business owner is to have some judgement, not be a thoughtless drone.
The man is an employee who entered into a mutually voluntary agreement with his employer.
Ah, that old chestnut. Well, here's a news flash for you. While it is certainly possible to enter into a contract with an employer, there are certain rights that no employer can take away from you even if you agree to them.
Now, whether any of those certain protected rights were violated in this particular instance are a matter for debate, the idea that ANY employer-employee agreement is some kind of sacred pact is patently absurd.
If the pink tie haters at his company truly felt that their phobia was enforceable then they should have stuck to their guns. Instead, as soon as he brought light to bear on their pointless power lust, they scurried off and let it drop.
Like a typical liberal, however, he decided to try and shirk that responsibility and garner public sympathy, and you seem to have fallen for the bait.
Yes, I'm sure the LAW AND ORDER authoritarians all think that way, but no real independent thinker does. The red-blooded American looks at stupid, pointless or tyrannical rules and says, "Give me liberty or give me death."
If you had been around Boston on March 5, 1770 you'd be one of the ones whining that if those cowardly colonials would have just obeyed THE RULES none of this unpleasantness would have happened.
“This one was. Apparently wearing a pink tie violated some fool’s sense of fashion.”
So a dress code that prohibits pink ties is by definition pointless? Tell that to the police, the military, etc. Your logic makes no sense.
“You didn’t outline any reasons other than, “There were rules! They made rules! OMG rulez!””
Obviously you didn’t understand what I wrote if that is all you took from it.
“Ah, that old chestnut. Well, here’s a news flash for you. While it is certainly possible to enter into a contract with an employer, there are certain rights that no employer can take away from you even if you agree to them.”
Ah, so there is some inalienable right to dress however you please at work now? I guess that has to apply to school children also, then. Good to know that dressing in gang colors or dolling yourself up like a hootchie mama is a freedom that no school or employer can take away! Or is this right only limited to the color of your tie? Who sets the limits here, you? Or can you point me to the source of this “right”?
“Now, whether any of those certain protected rights were violated in this particular instance are a matter for debate, the idea that ANY employer-employee agreement is some kind of sacred pact is patently absurd. “
I never stated it was a sacred pact, only a mutual agreement. If there is some part of that agreement that violates the law, then obviously it’s non-enforceable. Since dress codes don’t violate the law, then this whole argument of yours is itself patently absurd.
“If the pink tie haters at his company truly felt that their phobia was enforceable then they should have stuck to their guns. Instead, as soon as he brought light to bear on their pointless power lust, they scurried off and let it drop.”
Pink tie haters? You really think that is what this was about? Employers have some “phobia” against pink ties and are conspiring to destroy your right to flaunt them? What universe do you live in?
Besides, the fact that the employer agreed to allow employees to wear different color ties on a certain day, actually demonstrates that the employer was willing to be quite reasonable in this situation. If the employee had actually done the correct thing, and asked for the policy to be changed BEFORE he broke the rules, he probably could have achieved the same result without having to take a suspension.
“Yes, I’m sure the LAW AND ORDER authoritarians all think that way, but no real independent thinker does. The red-blooded American looks at stupid, pointless or tyrannical rules and says, “Give me liberty or give me death.” “
What the heck does an employer outlining reasonable guidelines in the workplace have to do with law and order or authoritarianism? You don’t seem to understand the difference between an employer and the government. Private citizens making consensual agreements between each other and enforcing them has absolutely nothing to do with tyranny.
Because a slavish attachment to a rule no matter the reason (otherwise known as zero tolerance) is the heart of authoritarianism.
Private citizens making consensual agreements between each other and enforcing them has absolutely nothing to do with tyranny.
Actually, it has everything to do with tyranny. Just because an employer may have the legal right to impose some stupid rule doesn't make it the right thing to do.
But here's the point that you keep missing:
As soon as this controversy became public, the employer folded like a cheap suit. Even the idiot people that made the idiot rule knew that it was an idiot rule that would make them out to be complete and total idiots once this hit the light of day. So they dropped it.
If it was so terribly important that all of their employees look exactly the same right down to the color of their ties then they should have stuck to it and fought it out in court. That's what you do when you are fighting for a principle.
But they didn't. They dropped it. So if it wasn't about principle, what was it about?
It was about making their drones do what they wanted.
Kudos to this guy for telling them to stick it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.