Actually, most companies require some sort of official process before someone can be fired, or fired for certain things. Of course if you do something really stupid like physically attack a co-worker you'll be escorted off the premisis by security then and there, but if you're just crap at your job your supervisor will spend weeks or months documenting your ineptitude and telling you how you need to improve before HR will allow her to officially fire you.
So yes, there is a "due process" involved with being fired from a job, and idiots like Weinstein and Lauer spent YEARS doing awful things and expecting their employers to hush it all up, and not caring how much documentation was being made. It was foolish hubris on their parts, they assumed they could get away with anything and get away with if forever, but they were gone the minute they became liabilities. The firings were easy when the time came, because those arrogant fools had already laid in the groundwork for the ousters.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
Yes, but “Due Process” is a constutitional right that protects citizens against government actions (not private entity actions) to infringe on fundamental rights, such as freedom and equality. Weinstein’s employment was contractual, and that contract stipulated, as most commonly do, that he could be fired “at will”. Companies outline the terms and conditions for termination in their employee contracts which Weinstein must have signed. Haven’t you see the scenario where the employee is given a box and escorted out of the building in 30 minutes? No due process there and all legal under contract law. Employees can file a civil case for wrongful termination but it is up to them to prove it, not the company. Due Process means the government has the burden of proving “probable cause” to make an arrest and facts “beyond a reasonable doubt” to imprison someone.
reply
share
Otter (24464)
6 years ago
That's a nitpick and you know it.
I'm not the one who brought up the "due process" issue, I'm actually quoting all the idiots who defended Weinstein or who were uncomfortable with the whole trial-by-media thing. Since he was not charged with any crime when I wrote this obviously "due process" didn't apply in the true legal sense, of course, they were complaining that he got fired from his job without any sort of apparent review or a chance to defend himself. Obviously, those people hadn't been paying attention to the case.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
🙄 Nope not a nitpick. Sick of people screaming about civil rights being violated when they are not. They had the right to fire him to save the company’s rep, or else Miramax would be facing the mother of all boycotts.
reply
share
Otter (24464)
6 years ago
And before you mention it, none of the people I was speaking to understand that being fired for being a rapist who abuses company funds is not a "civil rights" issue either. They don't understand the meaning of that term any more than "due process".
But obviously, nobody who would defend Harvey Weinstein understands much of anything.
reply
share