TheRiov wrote:
Of course a number of Fox news employees do this... must not be in their employee handbook. (Hannity for example)
http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-pos ... -too-22312No, it's not in their employee handbook.
As for Scarborough, according to what I've read, he cleared it first, thus not violating his contract - see how that works?
Taskiss wrote:
Corolinth wrote:
No, **** that. Once MSNBC paid Keith Olbermann, it became his money. You don't get to tell your employees what they are and are not allowed to do with their money.
I lean heavily in this direction too. I could understand requiring full disclosure, but that's about as far as I'd go.
That's what he violated, it wasn't the contributing, necessarily, he just didn't get it cleared with his boss before he did it.
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Vindicarre wrote:
I'm sure his career is not over; there's a reason they suspended him instead of firing him. That said, I think it's a good policy for a news organization to have, not what I'd consider dumb stuff.
Donating $2400 to a candidate (even a couple of candidates) is dumb stuff. I'm not arguing against the policy, I'm saying that Olbermann didn't get anything/much out of the donations; it's not like he's being fired for extortion. He just did something very minor.
No, it's not a bad policy.
It's like getting fired for having 1 beer with your lunch at a work function. Yeah, it's a good policy not to drink at work. But you just got fired for dumb stuff.
Yes, it was dumb of him to do it in violation of his contract.
As far as your analogy goes, it's like drinking said beer while on the air, seeing as he had one guy (a little known candidate outside of his locality) on the air at least a half-dozen times after, and the day of, his contribution.
_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko