(05-23-2019, 05:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course HR is business in the traditional sense. I don't know if they violated their contract; however, at a private Christian institution I wouldn't be surprised if they were required to sign some sort of morality agreement. Does failing to support; moreover, showing insolence toward your organization at one of their public-facing functions violate that agreement? IDK. But if it does not whomever wrote it is an idiot.
I don't consider the military as a business in the traditional sense like Nike or Apple. The military doesn't sell goods or services to customers in exchange for compensation.
Walking out in protest of Pence is not the same as walking out in protest of their university. That's a bridge too far.
(05-24-2019, 12:43 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't consider the military as a business in the traditional sense like Nike or Apple. The military doesn't sell goods or services to customers in exchange for compensation.
Walking out in protest of Pence is not the same as walking out in protest of their university. That's a bridge too far.
Your consideration of the "traditional sense" of business aside. The military is a huge business.
Your Bridge too far aside. They walked out in protest of a decision their employer made. They didn't listen to one word of Pence's speech.
(05-23-2019, 11:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. And IMO choosing to be insolent against your university in something as public-facing as a Graduation Ceremony hurts business and those that walked out have no business (pun intended) making that decision.
2. I thought you did in an earlier post (#49)
3. Absolutely nothing wrong with a free exchange of ideas in academia; but there is a thing known as decorum. I think some in this thread are ignoring (funny that I'm the only one been accused of ignoring anything) the actual event in an attempt to push their ideology.
My only assertion and the one that has been called into question is that the faculty members that defied the university in such a public forum should be disciplined. I've never stated what that discipline should be, but it should be reprimand at a minimum.
Guess that "shared governance" thing flew right over your head.
The administration could not be violating decorum by inviting Mike Pence.
Because they are "employers."
Some employees made their company look bad.
And that's bad for business--at a non-profit whose business is the "free exchange of ideas" and "decorum."
Decorum really, if you have to choose between them. LOL
(05-23-2019, 11:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. And IMO choosing to be insolent against your university in something as public-facing as a Graduation Ceremony hurts business and those that walked out have no business (pun intended) making that decision.
They weren't insolent against the university. The protested against Pence.
(05-23-2019, 11:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 2. I thought you did in an earlier post (#49)
I see the issue. You are applying that statement into a broader discussion about the overall structure of the institutions when it was intended for a much more narrow focus regarding the reaction to expression. I apologize if my use of the word "only" in that narrow context confused you.
(05-23-2019, 11:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. Absolutely nothing wrong with a free exchange of ideas in academia; but there is a thing known as decorum. I think some in this thread are ignoring (funny that I'm the only one been accused of ignoring anything) the actual event in an attempt to push their ideology.
I think getting up and walking out before the speaker you are protesting against takes the podium is in good taste as a protest. It is freedom of expression, and it was done in a way that got the message across but did not actually interrupt the ceremony.
(05-23-2019, 11:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My only assertion and the one that has been called into question is that the faculty members that defied the university in such a public forum should be disciplined. I've never stated what that discipline should be, but it should be reprimand at a minimum.
And my assertion is that reprimanding them is an action that stymies free expression in the university, which is a threat to the way high education is intended to function.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Really glad the OP isn't made about the employee disrespecting the employer. That would make all these pages a waste of time.
I think this falls under the old meme about people telling OTHER people how they SHOULD protest.
No matter how they protested some will say it was rude to the school, disrespectful to those who DIDN'T protest and not nice to Pence.
What the OP and other seem to want is people to NOT show up...in other words don't protest where it can be seen AS a protest because they disagree with the protest.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(05-24-2019, 01:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Your consideration of the "traditional sense" of business aside. The military is a huge business.
The military is an organization, but it isn't a business. The purpose of a business is to make money. Even senior Army leadership doesn't think the military is a business.
Quote:"But, are we a business?" Spoehr went on. "I think after due consideration, in the end the answer to that question must be no." - Lt. Gen. Thomas W. Spoeh, Director, Office of Business Transformation
Quote:Your Bridge too far aside. They walked out in protest of a decision their employer made. They didn't listen to one word of Pence's speech.
(05-24-2019, 09:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. They weren't insolent against the university. The protested against Pence.
2. I see the issue. You are applying that statement into a broader discussion about the overall structure of the institutions when it was intended for a much more narrow focus regarding the reaction to expression. I apologize if my use of the word "only" in that narrow context confused you.
3. I think getting up and walking out before the speaker you are protesting against takes the podium is in good taste as a protest. It is freedom of expression, and it was done in a way that got the message across but did not actually interrupt the ceremony.
4. And my assertion is that reprimanding them is an action that stymies free expression in the university, which is a threat to the way high education is intended to function.
1. I get phrasing that way makes it seem better for those that left the school function. Do you have a list of other events these professor have protested Pence. If the answer is no; then my point is made.
2. I blame me for the confusion
3. You have no idea what affect it had on the ceremony.
4. That's because you're a Liberal and I'm a Conservative. My assertion is "express" all you want, but be prepared to accept the consequences if your "expression" shows insolence toward your employer.
(05-24-2019, 10:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1. The military is an organization, but it isn't a business. The purpose of a business is to make money. Even senior Army leadership doesn't think the military is a business and in the most traditional sense.
1. You provide an article that explains how the Army is exactly like a business, but quote the ideology as one person as empirical evidence. There are elements of the Military that are a business.
Here's my empirical evidence that the Military is a business
..and business is a booming.
Further discussion on the matter is moot and going off the rails.
(05-24-2019, 10:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. I get phrasing that way makes it seem better for those that left the school function. Do you have a list of other events these professor have protested Pence. If the answer is no; then my point is made.
How is your point made? Did they protest the entire event, or only when Pence's part was coming up? If it's the latter, then my point is made.
(05-24-2019, 10:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. You have no idea what affect it had on the ceremony.
I just know that the form of protest they chose was not a very disruptive one, possibly one of the least disruptive options they could have chosen. They even walked out before Pence took the stage meaning they didn't take attention away from him, instead making an exit during a song preceding his part in the program.
(05-24-2019, 10:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 4. That's because you're a Liberal and I'm a Conservative. My assertion is "express" all you want, but be prepared to accept the consequences if your "expression" shows insolence toward your employer.
Well, the difference is that I don't consider this insolence towards the employer.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-24-2019, 11:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: How is your point made? Did they protest the entire event, or only when Pence's part was coming up? If it's the latter, then my point is made.
I just know that the form of protest they chose was not a very disruptive one, possibly one of the least disruptive options they could have chosen. They even walked out before Pence took the stage meaning they didn't take attention away from him, instead making an exit during a song preceding his part in the program.
Well, the difference is that I don't consider this insolence towards the employer.
1. They protested the part of the ceremony of which they disagreed with their employer's decision. They used this school function to do so.
2. I've already stated it beats booing and staying
(05-24-2019, 10:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. You provide an article that explains how the Army is exactly like a business, but quote the ideology as one person as empirical evidence. There are elements of the Military that are a business.
Here's my empirical evidence that the Military is a business
..and business is a booming.
Further discussion on the matter is moot and going off the rails.
A fictional movie is your "empirical evidence"? Thanks for the laugh. That's three times you've misused that word this morning.
You claimed your background is in business. You claimed Taylor University is a business. You also cited your business background as a reason why you understand why the staff should be punished and further implied other's lack of a business background is why they don't understand as you do. So you don't get to make claims about your business background then decide we are no longer going to discuss the subject you introduced into the discussion. Especially when you cite other's background in education as a reason why they don't understand the situation as you do. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.
What I cited was anecdotal evidence, not empirical. You might want to learn the difference so you stop misusing that word. While the military is an organization that has elements or practices they share in common with other organizations that are actually businesses, that doesn't make the military a business. If the military was an organization like Blackwater, then they would be a business. But, they aren't. If you (pretend to) fail to grasp the fundamental difference between the two then further discussion is moot.
Is the Army's business posting on the internet during normal business hours?
(05-24-2019, 11:39 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1. A fictional movie is your "empirical evidence"? Thanks for the laugh. That's three times you've misused that word this morning.
2. You claimed your background is in business. You claimed Taylor University is a business. You also cited your business background as a reason why you understand why the staff should be punished and further implied other's lack of a business background is why they don't understand as you do. So you don't get to make claims about your business background then decide we are no longer going to discuss the subject you introduced into the discussion. Especially when you cite other's background in education as a reason why they don't understand the situation as you do. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.
3. What I cited was anecdotal evidence, not empirical. You might want to learn the difference so you stop misusing that word. While the military is an organization that has elements or practices they share in common with other organizations that are actually businesses, that doesn't make the military a business. If the military was an organization like Blackwater, then they would be a business. But, they aren't. If you (pretend to) fail to grasp the fundamental difference between the two then further discussion is moot.
4. Is the Army's business posting on the internet during normal business hours?
5. And the owner's name, please?
1. I used the word and clip in jest but thanks for keeping count.
2. A private university is a business. But there becomes a point in evewry discussion where you realize your just talking to the wall
3. Once again I used empirical in jest, but we agree further discussion is moot
4. It's a holiday weekend, but your monitoring of my business practices is disconcerting
5. Hell you were the one that told me it was another employer. Shouldn't I be asking you for a name/ But I'm pretty sure the owner would be signing off on such a decision, in this case most likely the Board of Governance.
(05-24-2019, 11:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. I used the word and clip in jest but thanks for keeping count.
2. A private university is a business. But there becomes a point in evewry discussion where you realize your just talking to the wall
3. Once again I used empirical in jest, but we agree further discussion is moot
4. It's a holiday weekend, but your monitoring of my business practices is disconcerting
5. Hell you were the one that told me it was another employer. Shouldn't I be asking you for a name/ But I'm pretty sure the owner would be signing off on such a decision, in this case most likely the Board of Governance.
You're right it is a holiday weekend. What were you doing Wednesday during business hours? Turning a profit for the Army, no doubt.
I don't think Pence showed up unannounced without an invitation to speak. So someone had to approve the decision to have him speak. Someone like a dean, president, or chancellor. You know, another employee of the university. Oh, but you think it was a board that approved Pence's appearance. Does a Board of Governance own the university? I'm asking because I don't have your business background.
(05-24-2019, 12:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You're right it is a holiday weekend. What were you doing Wednesday during business hours? Turning a profit for the Army, no doubt.
I don't think Pence showed up unannounced without an invitation to speak. So someone had to approve the decision to have him speak. Someone like a dean, president, or chancellor. You know, another employee of the university. Oh, but you think it was a board that approved Pence's appearance. Does a Board of Governance own the university? I'm asking because I don't have your business background.
Actually Wednesday was my Birthday, I took the day off. This whole thing is getting kind of creepy.
Your the one that said another employee but ask me for a name when I said most likely the owner.
The Board does not own the University but they definitely speak for and execute the wishes of the owners. That's if they want to remain in business.
(05-24-2019, 10:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I told Matt: You view it from an ideological Liberal view. I view it as a business decision. It's good to be able to keep your head in the clouds.
You are saying that shared governance in a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote engaged, critical thinking is unrelated to federal, state and university statutes? Just a way of "viewing" a university? People who reference shared governance have their "head in the clouds" because its all really a business? But people who ignore statutes and tradition, repeatedly explained to them, are what--grounded? Non-ideological?
Imagine you are sitting in a business class in a university, as your professor is explaining to you the legal terms differentiating for-profit from non-profit organizations, and the guy next to you blurts out that "non-profit" is just an ideological liberal view of organizations.
That student is you, if we take it a step further and add "shared governance" to non profit.
Here, as on other threads, law and organizational relations seem invisible to you. Still just employees disobeying employers, while "on the clock," regardless of facts--like the "employers" are just employees too. It's all still just employers and employees. Even a governing board must work for "owners" and execute "their wishes." This is a box outside of which you apparently just cannot think. Even the military has to be a business with "owners" and "employees."
(05-24-2019, 02:58 PM)Dill Wrote: You are saying that shared governance in a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote engaged, critical thinking is unrelated to federal, state and university statutes? Just a way of "viewing" a university? People who reference shared governance have their "head in the clouds" because its all really a business? But people who ignore statutes and tradition, repeatedly explained to them, are what--grounded? Non-ideological?
Imagine you are sitting in a business class in a university, as your professor is explaining to you the legal terms differentiating for-profit from non-profit organizations, and the guy next to you blurts out that "non-profit" is just an ideological liberal view of organizations. It's all still just employers and employees.
That student is you, if we take it a step further and add "shared governance" to non profit. Here, as on other threads, law and organizational relations seem invisible to you. Still just employees disobeying employers, while "on the clock," regardless of facts--like the "employers" are just employees too.
Why do we have to imagine, why can't we use what actually happened?
What happened was not in the confines of the classroom, it was not a "walkout" when the decision was made to invite Pence, it was insolence toward your employer at a public-facing event.
It's great you, Pat, and others know the inner working of the classroom and the educational dynamic in general. The only thing anyone learned on that day is that it is OK (at best) supported (at worst) to defy your organization during a time of celebration because of your personal views
(05-24-2019, 01:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually Wednesday was my Birthday, I took the day off. This whole thing is getting kind of creepy.
Then you should talk to the moderators about removing the time date stamp from your posts so people can't tell when you post during business hours.
Quote:Your the one that said another employee but ask me for a name when I said most likely the owner.
Yes, I asked for a name because I want to know who the owner is. Because I don't think there is an "owner" so here is another opportunity for you to make me "look like" a "dumbass."
Quote:The Board does not own the University but they definitely speak for and execute the wishes of the owners. That's if they want to remain in business.
So now it's ownerssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss? Did the staff walk out on the owners or Pence?
I have this sneaky suspicion if dozens of staff members decided to call out sick on the same day you would have the same complaint they were disrespectful and insolent to their employer and Pence.
(05-20-2019, 09:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just seems like a good time to take a sick day instead of publicly defying your employer.
Is this based upon your military business experience? Or your HR experience?
If they didn't show up for work then their employer would have a valid reason to discipline them or even dismiss them. If they took a sick day when they weren't sick that would involve lying which is immoral and unethical. If they took paid sick leave that is fraud. What is the Army's position when a soldier fakes an injury or illness to avoid work? That is malingering which is punishable under the UCMJ.
Taking a sick day would be even worse than what they did because at the very least they didn't lie to their employer or get paid to stay home sick when they weren't.
And if dozens of staff members weren't there because they were all suddenly sick on the same day you would still complain about them publicly defying their employer.
(05-24-2019, 03:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why do we have to imagine, why can't we use what actually happened?
What happened was not in the confines of the classroom, it was not a "walkout" when the decision was made to invite Pence, it was insolence toward your employer at a public-facing event.
It's great you, Pat, and others know the inner working of the classroom and the educational dynamic in general. The only thing anyone learned on that day is that it is OK (at best) supported (at worst) to defy your organization during a time of celebration because of your personal views
And your best business advice as a HR rep is for the employees to lie to the employer and commit fraud.
This is why you should never trust HR reps because they will **** you in a heartbeat because they only consider what is in the best interest of the employer, not the employee. Obviously.
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
