We shouldn't be conceding that Trump can fire someone for ANY reason- I don't think that's true

[coti]

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2020, 05:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I think that the President, as an employer, should be constrained by the law the same as all at-will employment, which means there is a broad set of reasons for which you can't fire someone. Among these reasons are those related to civil rights- you can't fire someone because of their race, or their gender, or their religion, or a number of other protected categories. You can't fire someone because they won't have sex with you- it's important to hold Trump to that standard, don't you think? There are also limitations- that I'm admittedly less familiar with- regarding retaliation against employees exercising their legal rights. Presumably, testifying about the truth of a workplace matter- often called whistleblowing- should have a level of protection, as an exercise of legal rights and sound public policy.

Long story short, we shouldn't concede that Trump can fire someone for "any reason he wants." That doesn't seem right or true to me.

[Iliyah]

1. His cult approves . . .

But yes, it is impeachable and he will do more hateful things.

[Walleye]

2. Serving "at the pleasure of the president", but

The only thing that seems to please him is revenge. Despicable. Did Jesus say “hit them back ten times harder”?

[coti]

5. He's also "pleasured" by magazine spankings and "watersports," but

I don't think we can allow him to make those conditions of employment while still living in a democracy.

At-will employment gives a lot of freedom for firing, but it's not unlimited. He's a public official, not an emperor. HE works at OUR pleasure. By extension, the people working "for" him are not working for him personally, but working for us. Of the people, by the people, for the people. He can't do WHATEVER he wants.

"At the pleasure of the President" was a phrase of subservient respect emphasizing the honor of the White House when "at-will employment" was truly meant, but it's surely time we stop using that. It's not only misleading, it's also dangerous when we have a criminal like Trump in power.

[Walleye]

7. Agreed. Cipollone works for us, too. Hard to believe.

[Blue_playwright]

3. I can see the firing of Ltc Vindeman...

It's sketchy but in theory, he should have a team in the WH he can trust. But firing the brother cannot be legal in any level. It was beginning of the end for Nixon when he pulled this crap, hopefully fatnixon will hang himself with this behavior.

[virgogal]

4. Sure he can....same as any other president.

[coti]

6. So can he fire someone for being unwilling to give him a blowjob?

Without even a pretext?

Can ANY high-end, executive public official fire those working in our government on behalf of Americans so easily? What makes the President different?

I think there is a real misconception people have here.

[coti]

8. Kick nt

[Caliman73]

9. Unfortunately it is true.

There are exceptions, but they would likely be very difficult to prove. For example, Trump cannot discriminate against people because of a "protected status" (I.E. Gender, Religion, Race, etc...) There would likely be problems with firing someone for corrupt purposes as well, but who investigates that? That's right William Barr at DOJ, his crony.

So there are some constraints but they are likely not enforceable with the current idiots in the administration.

You can fire a Black person or a women for being Black or being a woman, you just cannot explicitly do it for that exact reason. People discriminate all the time they just do it in a way that is more difficult to pinpoint on a protected status. "Well, her sales stats were not quite up to par with some of the other top sales staff."

[democrattotheend]

10. Actually, he can't fire most federal employees without cause

Most career civil service bureaucrats can only be fired for cause and have the right to appeal removals, demotions, and suspensions to the Merit Systems Protection Board. I'm an attorney at a firm that represents a lot of federal employees, and clients who are facing removal or other action receive a letter that lays out in details the reason for the action. They get the chance to submit a written and oral reply, and if the removal is upheld they can appeal to the MSPB, although the MSPB currently has no quorum so its ability to reinstate anyone is on hold.

I don't believe the Vindmans have MSPB rights because they are active duty military, and the MSPB is for civilians. I don't know much about how it works in the military - I believe you can appeal to upgrade a dishonorable discharge to an honorable discharge, but I don't know if there is a process to contest the discharge itself.