Comments on: North Carolina state employee forced to retire for refusing to honor Jesse Helms.

By: Conyank

Conyank — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:56:38 +0000

I may be guessing here but did not the people of this fair state elect Helms to office all those years. The time to challenge him is not in death, but when he was alive and could defend himself. And I would also hazard a guess that there are a few federal projects that took place in NC at the behest of Mr. Helms. And these would have been for the betterment of the state. I can not comment on Mr. Helms record, because I don’t know it. It was not the govenor that was honoring Helms it was the state. The govenors actions were not political but Mr. Eason’s were. I would imagine that by now Mr. Eason has his job back and all parties have apologized to each other, as they should.

By: redford

redford — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:11:28 +0000

Mr. Eason:
I applaud you and admire you. Standing for principle is the direction in which we need to go and you are a leader.

I wish you happiness and good fortune,

Michael Redford

By: pax

pax — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:35:59 +0000

I applaud him too…..what a patriot!!!

I just drove through Smithfield, the home of the KKK of NC and much to my amazement saw a confederate flag along the highway flying at half-mast! What a sick country we live in.

By: upright left

upright left — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:02:29 +0000

______
pete Says:

Hiding one’s ignorance behind semantics lends nothing to an argument.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:21 am
______

So you’ll stop? ;)

By: pete

pete — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:21:04 +0000

Hiding one’s ignorance behind semantics lends nothing to an argument. If Mr Eason’s ex-boss has competent legal council, Mr Eason will have his job back by noon tomorrow. If not? The lawsuit will begin.

By: upright left

upright left — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:10:50 +0000

______
pete Says:

It was demanded that he participate in a public display of affection for someone.

July 10th, 2008 at 12:04 am
______

No it wasn’t. He wasn’t the person who put up the flag every day. It would have been someone that he supervised who did it.

By: upright left

upright left — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:05:36 +0000

______
neopro Says:

people can get fired for not lowering a flag?! devil’s advocate, even if you think that refusing to lower the flag for a bigot is equivelant to refusing to do so for civil rights champions, dont you think the punishment is a bit harsh? i’m still pissed that people can loose their job for smoking weed. people should get fired based on their inability to perform their job functions, not by their political views.

Also, Mr.Eason is my hero!

July 9th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
______
He wasn’t fired. He was lucky he was allowed to retire rather than be fired since he chose not to do his job. The U.S. flag on a state building isn’t the personal political statement of the individual in charge of raising it.

By: pete

pete — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:04:26 +0000

An employer, private or public, can not require an employee to display grief or respect for anyone any more than they may require one to vote for a preferred candidate. The ownership of the flag and premises has nothing to do with it. Politics has little to with it.

It was demanded that he participate in a public display of affection for someone. Giving him no other option but to lose his employment was illegal on many levels. And if one wants to play the hypothetical game, how about if OBL were killed and Chinpy demanded that flags fly at half mast to show respect for a fallen enemy? Castro? How about one of his numerous Saudi lovers?

But back to real world events… even the local Reich Radio fool, who happens to be a lawyer by training, is behind this guy. And comments I’ve heard and read elsewhere lead me to believe no court in the land would enforce this forced retirement. And that has nothing to do with any feelings about Helms’s politics. It’s a founding principle of our national identity.

Hump the flag all you want, I can’t find anything that would justify ending the career of someone over it’s flying. His boss could order his subordinates to comply (and they could respectfully decline), or they could have, as I pointed out earlier, “suspended” him for the day and probably end up repaying him plus possible punitive damages.

Instead they decided to make his career contingent on following an arbitrary order. That’s almost always a clear cut case of wrongful dismissal. Legions of civil lawyers have gotten rich making very simple arguments against arbitrary orders.

When you top that with the Constitutional aspects? I can guarantee that there are armies of ACLU lawyers preparing cases as we speak and waiting for the nod. The consensus among lawyers I’ve seen and heard comment on this case is that Mr. Eason could probably win rights to his ex-boss’s job, savings, and firstborn son. And I would bet a good deal that at least one of his ex-boss’s bosses has explained at great volume how stupid this was.

By: upright left

upright left — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:41:52 +0000

______
dixie blood Says:

UL just looooves being stoooopid!

Like Exlaxley and Mighty A$$holeAmighty and the other morons whom parade through here like little Cub Scouts in Mommy’s makeup and panty hose!

July 9th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
______

Evening dix! Having a good day? ;)

By: DvlsAdvocat

DvlsAdvocat — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:41:38 +0000

neopro Says: people can get fired for not lowering a flag?! devil’s advocate, even if you think that refusing to lower the flag for a bigot is equivelant to refusing to do so for civil rights champions, dont you think the punishment is a bit harsh?

But he wasn’t fired. The article said he was offered the option of lowering the flag as directed or resigning his position. This may be construed as the equivalent of being fired, but he could have saved his job by lowering the flag which he had to know would be lowered within minutes of his resignation. (and it was)

By: neopro

neopro — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:26:03 +0000

Also, Mr.Eason is my hero!

By: inselliebhaber

inselliebhaber — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:12:14 +0000

I think a lot of people do the wrong thing for the right reason. This gentleman thought he was doing the right thing, but not to comply with what he felt was a legal directive, was the wrong thing to do. For those who disagree, not a problem, that is why we have dialogue; to get different viewpoints out on the table for discussion. He chose an emotional response, which is inappropriate for a government employee.
Every government agency has avenues for addressing your grievances. I hope for his family and any who are depending on his salary and benefits, that he had other options available. Pride and principle can sometimes be blurred. He could have chosen to put himself on leave that day, and address the situation through normal channels. An all or nothing position results far too often in the “nothing”.
The last line in the position description for practically any government job will state, “…and all other tasks deemed necessary by those appointed over this employee”. I’ve never read one which says, “… and all tasks which the employee is in political agreement with!”
Have a nice day.

By: DvlsAdvocat

DvlsAdvocat — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:07:58 +0000

Mr. Eason’s freedom is not even relevant to this episode. He had the freedom to speak about his concerns to the media, write a letter to the governor or newspaper, freely meet with like-minded individuals, or petition the government to change the policy, ON HIS OWN TIME. His freedom of speech doesn’t extend to the management of the offices under his purview.

By: pete

pete — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:12:36 +0000

The whole concept of freedom is wasted on these silly tits. I don’t suppose it occurs to our Constitutional scholars that the employers could have sought to redress the issue with a, one day, unpaid suspension?

By: celtic cynic

celtic cynic — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:37:20 +0000

Good on you, L.F. Eason, good on you.

By: DvlsAdvocat

DvlsAdvocat — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:05:35 +0000

dixie blood: According to flag protocol only the President (in this case the completely useless GW Botch) can call for the American flag to fly at half-mast.

So the Gov is out of line!!

If you are going to make an argument, at least make an attempt at gathering the facts. According to flag protocol: Only the President and state Governors can decide when and how long the flag should be flown at half-staff.

So the governor was not “out of line” to decree the flag to be flown at half-mast at all state offices….like the one Mr. Eason worked in. Its not “his” flag nor “his” office to decide which decrees from the governor he will and will not abide by, at least without the reality of possible consequences.

By: dixie blood

dixie blood — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:40:12 +0000

UL just looooves being stoooopid!

Like Exlaxley and Mighty A$$holeAmighty and the other morons whom parade through here like little Cub Scouts in Mommy’s makeup and panty hose!

By: pete

pete — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:32:23 +0000

Sure UL. And Nixon resigned to spend time with his family.

My guess is that Mr. Eason has a fair understanding of his legal standing and will make the people who made the decision live to regret it. Even if there is clause in his contract about the flag I doubt such a clause would stand in court. I hope he enjoys his early retirement and gets his job back, if he wants, though I doubt he will lack for offers.

By: upright left

upright left — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:16:08 +0000

______
pete Says:
He most certainly was deprived of his livelihood you silly dolt. And he didn’t refuse to do his job. He made a political statement. No different than wearing an “I Like Ike” button.

And your prognostications fail. I have defended the politically incorrect since before the term was coined and have never been a fan of Sen. Kennedy. If, when the time comes, someone decided to not dip their flag? I would support them as vehemently as Mr. Eason.

July 9th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
______

He wasn’t fired, he chose to retire. He deprived himself of his livelihood. No one told him to agree with his job, just to do it.

“Though he’s only 51, Eason chose to retire…”

“Several people, including his wife, argued to Eason that the flags belonged to the state, as did the lab. But Eason said he felt a strong sense of ownership.”

He felt like it was his lab. It belongs to the state. The flag is not flown to honor people at his pleasure.

By: pete

pete — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:54:22 +0000

Not to mention, dixie, that even a legitimate violation of flag protocol is not grounds for termination. I really can’t wait for the court cases on this one. I have the feeling that the rednecks won’t fare well if they go to trial.