Well, the video link doesn't want to work the right way. Anyways, it's Dan Bongino with a couple of clips from Sky News talking about Sleepy Joe and how he is perceived overseas.
https://fb.watch/8Jf2gDbnvD/
Printable View
Well, the video link doesn't want to work the right way. Anyways, it's Dan Bongino with a couple of clips from Sky News talking about Sleepy Joe and how he is perceived overseas.
https://fb.watch/8Jf2gDbnvD/
https://artic-web.imgix.net/nullec29...h=678&fit=cropQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
I wonder if this falls under those discrimination laws, since they're technically unpaid volunteers.
Also, good luck replacing them with young low income people who are probably going to be too busy with their regular jobs to work at a museum for free.
Volunteers are not protected by either of those acts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
Are they not? I'm open to seeing the information or argument that they aren't if it's available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
They are volunteers, which are unpaid employees, who are still subject to the rules and practices of the company they are volunteering for. Under that idea, I would contend they are technically "employees", and to be dismissed based on their race as the sole issue falls under the statutes I highlighted.
Example: If a "volunteer" had accosted someone while at work for the museum, could the museum be held liable?.. since the individual is "employed" by the museum? Just because the "employee" is not paid, and does it voluntarily, doesn't mean they are not "employed"...
If have something to contradict that, then I'm open to it.
It's still stupid and racist as fuck.
Marie v. American Red Cross answers your question. Kinda fun too cuz nothing says america like nuns suing people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
Your nonsense example ignores the idea that the museum could be held liable if anyone accosted someone there. Employee, volunteer, or visitors.
I don't think the museum deserves those volunteers. I expect the place will start going downhill after this ridiculous decision.
They didn't fire the docents- they ended the docent program. They want to build an entirely new program that is more flexible and allows more members of the community to be a part of it. i.e. A program that isn't basically a full-time job. And it's not just this one museum- a lot of museums, zoos, etc. have done this over the last decade. This is hardly news, and it's definitely not discrimination against rich white women. Docent programs are falling out of favor, and people are looking to replace them with new programs that are more accessible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
Be wary of political spin. This whole "They fired them because they're white and rich!" tagline is running around in hyper conservative circles right now, but it's just another highly misleading, cynical white panic spin on something for the sake of manufactured outrage.
That’s basically what the museum said the reason was though so…Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
This seems just like more double-speak and changing of terms to try and explain something away.
The administration said themselves they needed to "diversify".. then fired their trained employees/volunteers.
People can try to explain it away with new, friendly terms.. doesn't change what it is. Shit is getting really weird in that way.
Just like "safe spaces" aren't segregation somehow..
Sorry, not drinking the kool-aid.
https://media.giphy.com/media/121dCll6tJ9o76/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by time4fun